Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Kirsten Oswald: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement on Scotland.

Alister Jack: This is an incredibly significant week for the whole planet, as countries from around the world gather in Glasgow to negotiate on climate action. We are facing a climate emergency, with no time to lose; we must keep 1.5° alive. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging all countries at COP to make a real commitment to change. I know that we will all want to take this opportunity to thank Police Scotland for working so hard to ensure a safe and secure COP26. It is supported in that by 7,000 police officers from other UK forces. I am very pleased that the UK Government have brought COP26 to Glasgow, and I am sure the city will receive a long-term boost from being in the world spotlight.
The UK Government have agreed a deal with the EU that fully delivers for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our deal provides Scottish businesses with exceptional access to EU markets. It is the first time the EU has ever agreed a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal. I regret that the SNP refused to support that deal.

Kirsten Oswald: Brexit-induced labour shortages are having a real impact on several sectors of the Scottish economy, with social care, hospitality, and food and drink among the worst hit. For some, the impact has been catastrophic, with up to a third of Scotland’s harvest of some crops left to rot in the fields. Those are the direct consequences of this UK Government’s hard Brexit deal and their ideological decision to abruptly end freedom of movement. The Secretary of State knows that, and he knows that the EU provided over €1 billion in Brexit support to Ireland, so will he back Scotland’s employers and support a compensation fund to mitigate the Brexit damage inflicted on Scotland against our will?

Alister Jack: The hon. Lady will know that I backed the increase in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 2,500 to 30,000. The National Farmers Union of Scotland is well aware of that; I led on those negotiations. She will know that the EU settled status scheme has been successful. We were told that fewer than 3 million people would apply but in fact over 6 million have applied. Some of those workers have remained in their countries; they can come to the UK freely, as she knows, but they remained in their countries during the pandemic, and the pandemic has been a factor. We also have the shortage occupations list, which creates lower salary requirements for skilled workers. This Government are doing everything they can, but we have to recognise that there is a pandemic effect on labour shortages at the moment.

David Mundell: The Secretary of State will be aware that the principal export market for most businesses in my constituency is in England. Does he share my frustration that the Scottish Government, rather than supporting those businesses with exports to other parts of the United Kingdom, continue to pursue an independence agenda, which could only mean more barriers for those businesses?

Alister Jack: My right hon. Friend is spot on. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is three times more than her trade with Europe. It is worth over £50 billion, it is worth over half a million jobs, and it is critical that we keep the border open.

Mhairi Black: The Secretary of State will remember that Scotland voted to remain part of the European Union, and that despite every compromise offered, this Government ploughed ahead with Brexit, knowing full well the damage that it would do to Scotland and that it was against the wishes of the people in Scotland. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected that the UK’s economy will be 4% smaller because of Brexit, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that Scottish exports were actually higher last year, during the height of the pandemic, than they are this year, after Brexit.
I know that the Secretary of State mentioned the pandemic, but that means that Brexit is having a worse impact on Scottish exports than the pandemic. Although he could have fooled me with his lack of mask, Mr Speaker, I am going to presume that the Secretary of State is not in favour of the pandemic and its effects. Given that the effects of Brexit are worse, why does he support it?

Alister Jack: The hon. Lady quotes the OBR. Actually, the OBR prediction was for economic growth to be 4% in March. The reality is that it has corrected that, and its prediction is now for economic growth to be 6.5% in 2021 and 6% in 2022. Actually, our economy is recovering strongly, and it is the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

Mhairi Black: This alternative reality is an international embarrassment. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) already mentioned, the EU provided over €1 billion to Ireland as a Brexit compensation fund to combat its effects. Since we knowthat Brexit is damaging Scotland’s economy and since this place clearly thinks itself so superior to the EU, without mentioning existing funds can the Secretary  of State tell us when Scotland will receive its Brexit compensation fund and how much will be in it?

Alister Jack: We have just had a Budget where the Chancellor has given £41 billion in the block grant, up £4.6 billion and the largest ever block grant received by the Scottish Government since devolution began in 1998. On top of that, this week there was almost £200 million in structural funds support through the levelling up fund, the community renewal fund and the community ownership fund. More money is going into Scotland than ever before to support Scotland as we go through the pandemic. It is a matter of enormous regret that last night, when the Budget vote took place, the SNP did not support all that extra funding for Scotland.

Douglas Ross: The EU announced earlier this week that it would be removing the tariffs on American whisky, in a further de-escalation of the trade dispute between the US and the EU. Clearly, there has already been positive news for the Scotch whisky industry with the five-year suspension, but will the Secretary of State work with me to encourage the UK Government to remove all tariffs on American whisky, which would further support the distillers in Moray and the industry across Scotland?

Alister Jack: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know that there are over 40 distilleries in his constituency, so I understand why he feels very strongly about this issue. I agree with him. We were successful in taking the 25% tariff away, but it needs to be removed completely and not just suspended for a number of years. The way to do that is for us to also remove our tariffs on bourbon. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss that.

Pete Wishart: Brexit has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. We now have food shortages, labour shortages, businesses unable to export their products and food rotting in the fields. Is it not about time, instead of all this mealy-mouthed nonsense, that the Secretary of State got to his feet and apologised to the people of Scotland for dragging our nation out of the European Union against its national collective will?

Alister Jack: I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. We have been through the pandemic and it is far too early to say what any impacts are to make predictions, but what we do know is that our economy is growing. We are doing fantastic trade deals around the world, which will benefit the Scottish economy, and Scottish food and drink. He just needs to get positive about that: stop talking down Scotland’s businesses, stop talking down Scotland, and start to get optimistic about the opportunities we face.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just gently say to Ministers that they are meant to speak through the Chair? That was becoming a very personal battle and I am trying to not allow that.

Scottish Fishing Industry

Andrew Bowie: What steps he is taking to support the Scottish fishing industry.

Iain Stewart: My Department continues to work closely with the Scottish fishing industry. Following the success of our Scottish Seafood Exports Taskforce, which made real progress on issues identified by industry, we are continuing to bring together industry and Ministers through our Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group to continue that productive engagement.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As a newly independent coastal state seeking this week to negotiate with Norway an agreement on Arctic cod, what is he doing to break the monopoly of the foreign-owned and rather slyly named UK Fisheries, which has had more than its fill from Svalbard and has for decades fleeced the Scottish fishing industry over the UK quota on Arctic cod?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am well aware of the representations the catching sector in Scotland has made over quotas it lost when we were a part of the common fisheries policy. That saw Scottish quotas swapped for the benefit of a foreign-owned vessel. I am sure that being an independent coastal state must mean that we look after our truly domestic businesses first and foremost.

Alistair Carmichael: I hope the Minister is aware that the next few weeks will be the most important weeks of the year for businesses exporting fish to continental Europe. Nothing should be done that will affect confidence in the reliability of supply from these shores. These are the same people who were absolutely hammered in the first week of the year as a consequence of the shambolic start to the year. They were promised compensation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at that stage. I have spoken to one supplier in Shetland who has been told that if he had allowed his fish to rot on the quayside, he would have got full compensation, but because he sold it at a significant discount in the domestic market, he will get nothing. Surely that it is not how it was supposed to work?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he cares to send me the details of that firm, I will certainly follow that up with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and make sure that the scheme has been working as it should have been.

Scotland’s Shipbuilding Industry

Sarah Atherton: What steps his Department is taking to create jobs and encourage investment in Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.

Jack Lopresti: What steps his Department is taking to create jobs and encourage investment in Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.

Alister Jack: The UK Government’s commitment to shipbuilding in Scotland is unwavering. Over the past 15 years, we have delivered: six Type 45 destroyers, launched from the Clyde; two aircraft carriers, assembled at Rosyth; five offshore patrol vessels, built on the Clyde; and we have ensured a bulging order book for the future—eight Type 26 frigates have been ordered, with three of them already under construction on the Clyde, and five Type 31 frigates have been ordered and are destined for Rosyth.

Sarah Atherton: I am pleased that the first deal has been cut for the Type 31 frigate, HMS Venturer, which is being built at Rosyth. With the fleet’s construction due to support 1,250 jobs and 150 apprenticeships, does my right hon. Friend agree that such projects are integral to the Union?

Alister Jack: I absolutely agree: the shipbuilding industry makes a huge contribution to strengthening the Union. It directly supports UK security and prosperity, and it supports 25,200 jobs across the UK and 7,000 direct jobs in Scotland. I was fortunate to visit BAE Systems in Govan recently and I met the excellent workforce building HMS Glasgow; I am assured that she will be a very fine ship.

Jack Lopresti: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that Scotland’s state-owned shipyard could not even compete for a Scottish ferry building contract, and does he note that the Scottish Government’s failure may cost many shipbuilding jobs?

Alister Jack: I do share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the Scottish Government-owned shipyard was unable to compete in the tenders for two new ferries for Scotland. That disappointment is shared by the whole of Scotland, particularly island communities, who are suffering every day as a result of the SNP’s self-inflicted ferry fiasco.

Alan Brown: The Orbital O2 tidal generator was the first marine vessel launched from Dundee in 40 years. Wave and tidal offer massive opportunities for the wider maritime industry in Scotland. All that is required for these technologies to scale up is a ring-fenced pot of money in the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. Will the Secretary of State, given his power, raise this with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that that happens? I would be happy to meet him.

Alister Jack: Yes, and yes.

Chris Elmore: In 2019, the Scottish Government took shipbuilding company Ferguson Marine into public ownership. The yard was supposed to deliver two ferries by the end of 2019 at a cost of £97 million. The ferries still have not been delivered and the total cost has ballooned to more than double the original budget, leaving islanders without new ferries and taxpayers footing the bill. As we have just heard, rather than now using the shipbuilder to build more ferries, they are sending the contracts abroad to create jobs in other countries. Does the Secretary of State think that that   represents value for money for Scottish and UK taxpayers? If he does not, will he raise the issue with Scottish Ministers, because taxpayers really do deserve better?

Alister Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Scottish Government’s incompetence in this area has cost the taxpayer very, very heavily. Eleven organisations responded to the original procurement process. The three chosen to tender were shipyards in Romania, Poland and Turkey. I would have preferred the Scottish Government to show some loyalty to UK shipyards, even if their own one could not fulfil the contract.

Scottish Seed Potato Industry

Duncan Baker: What steps the Government are taking to support the Scottish seed potato industry.

Iain Stewart: This Government are continuing to work collaboratively with counterparts in the devolved Administrations on issues affecting seed potato growers. We remain in close contact with the main industry bodies and we continue to press the European Commission to allow imports of our high-class seed potatoes.

Duncan Baker: The EU continues to block seed potato exports into Europe. It offers no reciprocal trading arrangements and that is harming not only the vital industry in Scotland, but my growers, Solana Seeds, in North Norfolk. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to explain the situation further and what we are doing to rectify this problem?

Iain Stewart: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I can tell him that an application has been submitted to the EU to lift the restrictions, based on recognising GB seed potato requirements as equivalent, and is being pursued at both a political and a technical level. We remain committed to finding a solution to allow exports to resume and will continue to press our case with the Commission. In the meantime, the temporary authorisation that allowed imports of seed potatoes from the EU expired on 30 June.

Kerry McCarthy: This is just another example of the botched Brexit deal failing to take into account the needs of a small but very important industry. The industry has now completely collapsed; 30,000 tonnes of seed have not been exported and £13.5 million of trade is no longer in place. What is the Minister doing to ensure that an equivalence deal is reached with the EU as soon as possible so that trade can resume?

Iain Stewart: In addition to the points that I made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), I point out to the hon. Lady that there is enormous export potential around the world, particularly in China and elsewhere in Asia, for Scottish seed potatoes. I discussed the matter with the industry in Glasgow on Monday evening. There is huge potential, and we will do everything we can to help the industry to realise it.

Government’s Plan for Jobs

Sara Britcliffe: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government’s Plan for Jobs in supporting people in work in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: Our UK-wide total Department for Work and Pensions spend on labour market support will increase to more than £6 billion, which will give everyone a chance to progress, work and develop the skills that they need for the modern workforce. In Scotland, we have made available more than 15,000 jobs, and approximately 8,000 jobs have already started.

Sara Britcliffe: Supporting young people to fulfil their potential is key to levelling up opportunity. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK-wide kickstart scheme, which has made well over 10,000 Scottish placements available, is yet another example of the UK Government delivering for the people of Scotland?

Iain Stewart: I absolutely agree. If I can loop my answer back to earlier questions about labour market issues, I hope that the schemes that the Government are putting forward will help to give the next generation the skills to fill these domestic vacancies.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Ian Murray: A proper plan for jobs would have Scottish renewables at its heart. There are four simple steps that the Minister could take today to unleash that proper plan’s potential: first, persuade the Treasury to create a pot dedicated to tidal energy in the fourth contracts for difference auction; secondly, instruct Ofgem to reform transmission charges to stop disadvantaging Scotland; thirdly, fund energy interconnectors from the island generators to the mainland; and fourthly, back the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Those Government decisions would not only transform the UK energy sector, but create a Scottish jobs legacy from COP26. Will the Minister demand that his Cabinet colleagues act now to create a proper jobs plan for Scotland?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Scotland has enormous potential in the renewables sector. I can reassure him that the Acorn project is not dead; it did not get through to the first two, but it is the reserve project and we will be working closely to ensure that it is in a future round. Through my Department, we are funding a number of renewable energy schemes such as CoRE—the Community Renewable Energy project—in East Ayrshire. Tidal energy, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, can form part of the Orkney islands growth deal. More generally, I would be happy to facilitate a meeting with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy so that the hon. Gentleman can discuss the wider issues.

Ian Murray: I would certainly accept a meeting with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to go over the issues, but I would have thought that the Minister and the Scotland Office would also  want to champion them. If one outcome from the conference of the parties is quite clear, it is that we need action, not just words.
The Chancellor’s Budget last week did not have a plan for jobs either; in fact, he barely mentioned it. Despite paying more, Scottish taxpayers are getting much less after a decade of devastating Tory and SNP austerity. It is no plan for jobs to increase taxes on businesses and hard-working people at a time when households and businesses are struggling with rapidly rising costs. Are the Minister—as a Conservative Minister—and his Department comfortable that under his Government, hard-working Scots now face the highest tax burden since the 1950s?

Iain Stewart: On income tax, the Scottish Government are responsible and it is indeed true that they have higher taxes than the rest of the UK. I will leave the hon. Gentleman to take that up with the Scottish Government.
On his wider point about unemployment and employment, if the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the Budget last week, the forecast for unemployment after the pandemic was originally about 12%, but it is going to be less than half that. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is making to universal credit tapers, for example, will leave more money in the hands of hard-working people.

Turing Scheme: Young People in Scotland

Ben Everitt: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Turing scheme for young people in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: The Turing scheme has provided funding for more than 40,000 participants from schools, colleges and universities across the UK to study and work around the globe during this academic year. Education providers in Scotland have received more than £8.2 million in funding under the scheme.

Ben Everitt: As one of two Members of Parliament representing Milton Keynes in this place, I am especially proud that the scheme is named after one of our local heroes, Alan Turing. Can my hon. Friend and neighbour confirm that the scheme’s organisers will continue to seek global opportunities for our students, in the hope that we can inspire the next generation of codebreakers? Will he also join me in welcoming the fact that there  are 28 successful applicants for Scottish projects, and £7.9 million is available for those projects this year?

Iain Stewart: I absolutely agree with my hon. and close Friend in Milton Keynes. It is a matter of pride that the scheme is named after Alan Turing, and given the work that he did to help the globe, I think it entirely fitting that our global scheme, which goes way beyond the horizons of Erasmus, is proving such a success. I am happy to confirm that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget last week, funds will be provided to deliver the scheme for another three years.

Scottish Parliament: Legislative Competence

Greg Smith: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Alister Jack: I have frequent conversations with Cabinet colleagues about maintaining and strengthening the devolution settlement and ensuring that the Government’s focus is on delivering for Scotland. It is important that all legislation clearly reflects the competence and roles of Scotland’s two Parliaments and two Governments.

Greg Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issue here is the need for the Scottish Government to exercise their existing powers more effectively, rather than asking for new powers or seeking to go outside the realms of the Scotland Act 1998?

Alister Jack: As my hon. Friend will know, we routinely engage with the Scottish Government on the use of devolved powers. It is in the interests of citizens across the UK for both Governments to operate within their respective powers, as set out in the Scotland Act. That is why I informed the Deputy First Minister back in March that I felt that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill contained clauses that were outside the competence of the Scottish Government. Sadly, our warnings and suggestions for changes to the Bills were ignored, so our Law Officers referred the relevant clauses to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed with our views on every count. I hope that the Scottish Government will in future work with us to ensure that their Bills respect the devolution settlement, so that we do not waste any more time and money when enacting important legislation.

Renewables and Green Energy: Onshore Employment

Kenny MacAskill: What steps he is taking to support onshore employment from renewables and other forms of green energy in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: This Government are committed to the transition of the economy to net zero by 2050. We recently published our net zero strategy, which will support hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs and leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030 across the entire United Kingdom.

Kenny MacAskill: Communities must have local as well as large-scale projects such as turbine manufacturing, which Scotland is sadly missing out on, but communities such as my own in East Lothian are denied a share of the wealth going ashore. There is a legislative gap to allow community benefit from offshore as opposed to onshore wind. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this to see whether East Lothian and other such communities can benefit from offshore wind, as Shetland has benefited from oil and gas?

Iain Stewart: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out to him that this Government are investing heavily in offshore wind, as was announced this week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

David Duguid: Scotland clearly has a lot to offer towards our net zero objectives—not least its high-quality wind! Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Acorn carbon capture and storage and hydrogen project is still very much part of the UK Government’s plans for our overall carbon capture, utilisation and storage strategy and our net zero objectives?

Iain Stewart: The short answer is yes. As I explained a moment ago, that was not successful in the first two but it is a reserve project and we are actively working to ensure that it is there in future rounds.

Carol Monaghan: Over 97% of Scotland’s electricity comes from renewable sources. This sector’s expansion is hampered not by potential but by the highest grid connection charges in the UK. COP is an opportunity to reassess such arrangements, so what discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues on reducing those connection charges?

Iain Stewart: I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss these matters and I will continue to do so. I would point out the investment that my Department is making in renewable energy right across Scotland. This includes the community renewable energy—or CoRE—project in East Ayrshire and tidal energy and offshore wind in Shetland. We are making real investment that will make a real difference to people’s lives and the planet.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of the proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Rupa Huq: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 November.

Boris Johnson: As the House will be in recess next week, I am sure that colleagues will join me in looking ahead to Armistice Day and remembering those men and women who have served and lost their lives in the service of this country. We also thank the members of our armed forces who continue to do so today.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Rupa Huq: The Prime Minister has been busy preaching urgency this week at COP26, and I hope that he has caught up with his sleep. When he sits down with his grandchildren one day and they ask, “What did you do in that week of COP26?”, will he be able to outline one action that was in his gift that had an immediate impact? Will he be consistent with what he has always said and done and take on the biggest emitter of CO2 in the whole of Europe, which greedily and voraciously wants more? Will he ditch his predecessor’s damaging, daft, pre-levelling up, pre-Zoom and pre-90%-drop-in-demand proposal and have a fresh vote in this House to kill off the third runway at Heathrow?

Boris Johnson: What this Government are going to do, rather than taking steps to damage the economy of this country, which is what Labour would do, is get to net zero aviation. That is the future for this country: clean, green aviation. And by the way, that has every chance of arriving a lot earlier than a third runway at Heathrow.

James Wild: I share my right hon. Friend’s commitment to building back better, building back greener and levelling up, and I have a project that would deliver on all those things: rebuilding the ageing Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn. I have shown him the pictures of the 200 props holding up its decaying roof, so will he make the Queen Elizabeth one of the eight new schemes giving people in Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire the hospital they need?

Boris Johnson: I know that my hon. Friend does a huge amount of work for his constituents. I have seen the pictures that he describes. I can tell him that the application is in from the hospital in his constituency and that it is under consideration. We aim to make our final decision in the spring of next year.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the deputy leader of the Labour party, Angela Rayner.

Angela Rayner: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I share the Prime Minister’s opening words regarding our armed forces and the tremendous work that they do? I also send my best wishes to all those recovering in Salisbury and give our sincere thanks to the emergency services that responded on that day. I would also like to wish all those who are celebrating tomorrow a very happy and peaceful Diwali.
Let me start with something on which there should be agreement on both sides of the House. The independent standards process found that a Member broke the rules on paid lobbying. Surely the Prime Minister accepts that this is, and should be, a serious offence, yet we have seen reports that he will respond by scrapping the independent process and overturning its verdict. In no other profession in our country could someone be found guilty by an independent process and just have their mates vote them back into the job. Surely the Prime Minister and this Government are not going to do that today.

Boris Johnson: No, of course we are not going to do that, because paid lobbying, paid advocacy, in this House is wrong. I make absolutely no bones about that.  Members who are found guilty of it should apologise and pay the necessary penalties, but that is not the issue in this case or in the vote befor us today.
The issue in this case, which involves a serious family tragedy, is whether a Member of this House had a fair opportunity to make representations and whether, as a matter of natural justice, our procedures in this House allow for a proper appeal, which is something that should be of interest to Members across this House and should be approached properly in a spirit of moderation and compassion.

Angela Rayner: Let me put it simply. If it was a police officer, a teacher or a doctor, we would expect the independent process to be followed and not changed after the verdict. It is one rule for Conservative Members and another rule for the rest of us.
When a Conservative Member was found guilty of sexual harassment but let off on a loophole, they said the rules could not be changed after the event. So they cannot change the rules to stop sexual harassment, but they can change the rules to allow cash for access. Why is the Prime Minister making it up as he goes along?

Boris Johnson: All the professions that she mentions have a right of appeal, which is what the House needs to consider. I respectfully say to her that, instead of playing of politics on this issue, which is what Opposition Members are doing, she needs to consider the procedures of this House in a spirit of fairness. Instead of playing politics, we are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities: 40 more hospitals, 20,000 more police officers and wages up, growth up and jobs up across this country. Those are our priorities. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Perkins, I do not want to see any more of that.

Angela Rayner: It is not about playing politics in this place; it is about playing by the rules. As we can see, it is one rule for everybody else and another rule for the Conservatives. When they break the rules, they just remake the rules. I know Donald Trump is the Prime Minister’s hero, but I say to him in all seriousness that he should learn the lesson that, if he keeps cheating the public, it will catch up with him in the end. While  the Conservatives are wallowing in sleaze, the rest of the country faces higher bills, rising costs and damaging tax rises. Can he tell us the projected tax increase per household over the next five years?

Boris Johnson: What I can tell her is that the recent Budget took cash from those who can afford to pay the most and made very substantial tax cuts for the hardest working and poorest families in this country. We cut £1,000 with the universal credit taper relief for hard-working families in this country—2 million families had a £1,000 tax cut—and we are lifting the living wage across the whole country. We are also ensuring that this country gets on with a high-wage, high-skill, jobs-led recovery, and never let it be forgotten that had we listened to the Opposition we would have none of those things because we would still be in lockdown.

Angela Rayner: I think the Prime Minister missed out the number, so let me help him out. The Resolution Foundation found that by 2026 taxes will be £3,000 more   per household since he took office. My constituents and his are feeling the pinch, and they are worried about Christmas as well. Their bills are going up every week and the Budget did nothing to help them. So can the Prime Minister tell them: how much was the tax cut that he gave to the banks instead?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Lady knows very well, it is the banks and the bankers who are paying far more proportionately as a result of our tax measures to cover the cost of the NHS. It is a very moot point because, of the £36 billion, 50% comes from the 14% who are the richest in this country—overwhelmingly, from the banks and financial services industry—who can pay the most. The astonishing thing is that, when it came to voting for that £36 billion increase—for 48 new hospitals, 50,000 more nurses and looking after our public services—the Opposition voted against it.

Angela Rayner: According to the Prime Minister’s own Budget documents, it was £4 billion in tax cuts to the bankers and £3,000 of tax rises per household. That is good news for the donor who gave his party half a million pounds—his bank got a bonus of nearly £8 million—but not so good news for the rest of us.
This month, as the Prime Minister said, we remember and celebrate all those who serve our great country, all those who have lost their lives, leaving behind loved ones, and those who have sustained life-changing injuries and live every day with the consequences of their sacrifice. Yet hidden in the small print of the Budget was a £1 billion cut to day-to-day defence spending. So will our servicemen and women face pay cuts, or will there be fewer of them, with less support?

Boris Johnson: I think it is quite incredible that we are now hearing this from the Labour party, when they would have pulled us out of NATO. I think the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) actually wanted to abolish the Army. The woman sitting next to the right hon. Lady wanted to abolish the Army. What you have got with this Government is spending on defence that is the highest since the cold war; it is the biggest uplift since the cold war and an increase that has restored confidence in this country around the world, in our ability to defend not just our own shores, but our friends and partners. That is what this Government are doing.

Angela Rayner: The Prime Minister knows that I asked him about the annual defence budget, which his own Budget documents show will drop by £1.3 billion. I hear his fine words, and I am from a military family myself, but I will not take party political lectures from him, because too often the Government’s actions do not match their words. I think of my constituent who fought in Afghanistan, yet was threatened with sanctions because he was unable to physically travel miles to the nearest Department for Work and Pensions office. The Prime Minister’s tax cut for short-haul flights last week cost £30 million—that is 50% more than the Government spend on supporting veterans’ mental health each year. The charity Combat Stress has lost £6 million in funding this year, even as calls to its helpline have doubled. So will the Prime Minister match our proposal to reinvest the £35 million saved from cancelled Ministry of Defence contracts to support our veterans, who surely deserve it?

Boris Johnson: It is because we have been able to run a strong economy and take our economy out of lockdown that we have been able to invest massively in the NHS, to lift spending on defence to record levels and to keep supporting our fantastic public services. That is what this Government are able to do.
I enjoy my conversations with the right hon. Lady, in spite of the insults and party political points that she directs towards the Government. I do not want to cause any further dissension on the Opposition Benches, but I think you will agree, Mr Speaker, that she has about a gigawatt more energy than the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I am just putting that out there. But it is the same old Labour: no plan and no ideas. We are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities and taking this country forward. Growth is up, jobs are up, wages are up and productivity is up. All Labour does is play politics while we deliver.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for securing our fantastic Stoke-on-Trent levelling-up funding. If we are truly to level up opportunities and access to opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent, we must also improve our poor public transport, so will my right hon. Friend agree to look at the possibility of bus franchising in the Potteries?

Boris Johnson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a fanatic about buses. We are putting £1.2 billion more into bus funding, and I know that Stoke-on-Trent has applied for that. I urge my hon. Friend to take up his suggestion immediately with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Ian Blackford: As we look forward to Remembrance Sunday, may I, too, commend those who have served and the military and security services that protect us all for the job that they continue to do?
Sir David Attenborough’s powerful opening statement to COP26 told us that the journey to net zero means:
“We must recapture billions of tons of carbon from the air.”
The Climate Change Committee has been clear that carbon capture and storage
“is a necessity not an option”
to achieve the planet’s net zero targets.
This week, Scotland’s world-leading climate targets have received widespread praise from, among others, the UN Secretary-General. Scotland is finding partners around the world to tackle the climate emergency, but in Westminster there is not even a willing partner to deliver the long-promised carbon-capture project. Scotland’s north-east has now been waiting weeks for a clear reason for exactly why the Scottish cluster bid was rejected. There have been no clear answers, and not even clear excuses, so perhaps the Prime Minister will answer this simple question: does he know exactly how much of the UK’s CO2 storage the Scottish cluster could deliver?

Boris Johnson: I am a massive enthusiast for carbon capture and storage around the whole UK. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Acorn project in  Aberdeen remains on the reserve list. He should not give up: we will come back to this issue and, of course, we want to make sure that we have a fantastic industry generating clean hydrogen around the country. The right hon. Gentleman should not despair. In the meantime, we are supporting amazing Scottish plans to get clean energy from wind, hydrogen and all sorts of means. I thank the people of Scotland and the people of Glasgow for the way they have helped to produce what has been, so far, a fantastically well-organised summit.

Ian Blackford: It is bad enough that the Prime Minister rejected the Scottish cluster a week before COP, but what is worse is that he clearly does not even know or understand what his Government were rejecting. Let me tell him: the Scottish cluster bid would have stored 30% of the UK’s CO2 emissions and supported the creation of around 20,000 jobs in green industries. It was far and away the best bid, Prime Minister. If the decision was based on science alone, it would have been approved on the spot. It is obvious that there was a political decision in Westminster to reject it. With days left at the COP summit, will the Prime Minister now reverse his Government’s massive own goal in rejecting the Scottish cluster?

Boris Johnson: I am trying to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to be a little bit less gloomy about the prospects of this initiative. I understand exactly what he says, and we are working with the Scottish Government, whom I thank for their co-operation and all their support for COP in the past few days and weeks and for what they are doing. We will come back to this issue. What I think is working well is the spirit of co-operation among all levels of government in this country, and what does not work is confrontation.

Simon Jupp: House prices are rising in East Devon, with the dream of home ownership becoming out of reach for too many local people. New-build developments must be affordable, with protections in place to restrict the number of properties becoming second homes. The loophole that allows second-home owners to avoid paying council tax should be closed quickly to help local authorities. Will the Prime Minister meet me and colleagues from across the south-west to discuss this growing crisis across our region?

Boris Johnson: I know how strongly my hon. Friend and other colleagues across the south-west feel about this issue. That is why we have legislated to introduce higher rates of stamp duty on second homes. We will ensure that only genuine holiday businesses can access small business rates relief, but I am certainly happy to meet colleagues to discuss what further we may do to ensure that local people get the homes that they need.

Neale Hanvey: In the words of the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth:
“Scotland is vital for the UK’s energy needs, both currently and in the future…It is also vital for our future offshore wind capabilities, and other low-carbon and renewable energies.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 615.]
As he confirms, it is the rest of the UK that is dependent on Scotland, not the other way round. Does the Prime Minister not realise that his failure to invest in carbon capture and storage at St Fergus in Grangemouth and to feed the potential at Mossmorran in my constituency, is regarded as an act of deliberate economic vandalism, casting himself less as Bond and more as Blofeld the villain, for all the COP26 world to see?

Boris Johnson: What the COP26 world can see is the astonishing achievements of Scotland and the rest of the UK in developing clean energy sources. I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party in Westminster, that we will come back to the Aberdeen—[Interruption.] Sorry, forgive me, the hon. Gentleman is a member of a different party, but it has substantially the same agenda. We will come back to this. What I have found encouraging about the past few days is the spirit of co-operation and joint enterprise that I now detect that will enable us to deliver massive carbon cuts across this whole country.

Peter Gibson: Darlington station is receiving £105 million thanks to this Government’s plans to make it HS2 ready. I want to make sure that Darlington benefits from high-speed rail, so will my right hon. Friend meet with me and regional colleagues to discuss the eastern leg of HS2 and the reopening of the Leamside line to allow the full region to be better connected?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done for Darlington. He should wait for the interim rail plan to come out, but, in the meantime, we are upgrading Darlington station. There are plans in place and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £310 million of funding over the next five years to transform local transport networks in the Tees Valley.

Kate Osborne: The Prime Minister says that he is fanatical about buses, but what about trains, and not just in Darlington? I am talking about the Leamside line. Last Wednesday, I was notified that a joint bid to reinstate the mothballed Leamside line had not been successful in attracting the next stage of the feasibility funding from the Government as part of the restoring your railway fund. Will the Prime Minister tell us what specific plans the Government have to invest in the north-east, in places such as Gateshead and south Tyneside in my constituency, and when will he get serious about levelling up in our communities instead of just using the term as a meaningless, populist slogan?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady must wait for the integrated rail plan, but the north-east will be the beneficiary of the biggest investment in our rail infrastructure beyond HS2 that we have seen for a century. We will be putting in about £96 billion more, and we want the local and regional authorities to work with us to ensure that we promote the projects that the people really want.

Andrea Leadsom: I want to really thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the early years healthy development review and, in particular, for the half a billion pounds  of new money at the spending review last week. He often says that talent is spread equally across our country, but opportunity is not, so does he agree that giving every baby the best start in life is the best possible way to level up across our country?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I have listened to my right hon. Friend over many years on this issue and she is 100% right in what she says about the importance of early years. That is why we are investing £500 million to support families and children, including £82 million to create a network of family hubs to bring together services for children of all ages. We are going to continue to invest in children’s early years—for example, the  offer of 15 hours of early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds that has already benefited 1.1 million disadvantaged kids since 2013.

Florence Eshalomi: I was recently contacted by a Vauxhall constituent whose mother tragically committed suicide after criminal domestic abuse by her husband, with the inquest into her suicide finding his actions to be a direct cause. Incredibly, her abuser now stands to inherit her pension and entire estate because she was unable to complete a divorce. This has left the family devasted, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending them our condolences. Does the Prime Minister agree that convicted domestic abusers should never be able to profit from their victims, and will he meet my constituent and me to fix this hole in the law?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member describes a truly tragic and appalling case. I am sure that the whole House will share the revulsion that she has expressed at the outcome of the law’s processes. We will certainly need to have a meeting to see what we can do to address that loophole.

Jeremy Hunt: NHS staff performed magnificently during the pandemic, but there are now severe shortages in nearly every specialty. Will my right hon. Friend support an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that is backed by 50 NHS organisations and every royal college to require Health Education England to do regular independent forecasts of the numbers of doctors and nurses that we should be training, so that we can reassure people that, despite the pressure today, we are at least training enough doctors and nurses for the future?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to ensure that our NHS has the staff that it needs. That is why there are 50,000 more healthcare professionals in the NHS this year than there were  last year—12,000 more nurses. In addition, there are  60,000 nurses in training—[Interruption.] Somebody on the Opposition Benches asks, “Why are there waiting lists?”. It is because we have been through a pandemic. We are fixing those waiting lists with £36 billion of investment, which the Labour party voted against.

Martyn Day: It is a little over a year since I last challenged the Prime Minister over his campaign promises to the 1950s-born women, in which time he has done hee-haw  about their pension injustices, so will he tell me today: do his Government have any plans to deliver justice for the women involved?

Boris Johnson: This is a very difficult issue, as the whole House knows. The case of the WASPI women is not easily addressed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the expenditure involved is very considerable and the tax that would have to be raised would be very considerable. We continue to reflect on all the options to ensure that people across this country get fair pensions.

Jill Mortimer: As a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the pain and torment of losing a child. Richard Lee, a constituent of mine and veteran who served with distinction in the British Army, has been living with this pain every day of his life since 28 November 1981. On that day, his daughter, Katrice Lee, went missing from a military shopping complex near Paderborn in Germany. It was Katrice’s second birthday, and her family are still searching. The 40th anniversary of Katrice’s disappearance is coming up at the end of this month. It will undoubtedly be an exceptionally painful event for the entire Lee family. Will the Prime Minister please agree to meet Mr Lee, father to father, and reassure him that Katrice has not been forgotten?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely tragic case. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with Katrice Lee’s family. Of course I will agree to my hon. Friend’s request and meet Mr Lee, father to father.

Sarah Green: The Epilepsy Society is a charity and world-leading research centre based in my constituency. It started the epilepsy climate change initiative to better understand the effects of global warming on epilepsy, and the impact is already clear. A recent survey showed that in hot weather 62% of those whose seizures were uncontrolled experienced an increase in seizure frequency or severity. Will the Prime Minister join me in endorsing the epilepsy climate change initiative and commit to more funding to research the impact of climate change on human health?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady raises a very interesting aspect of research into epilepsy. We are funding epilepsy research with another £54 million over the last few years. The issue that she raises of any particular link between hot weather or climate change and epilepsy is certainly one that we will be going into.

Elliot Colburn: Last week, an independent inquiry into Lib Dem-run Sutton Council’s own heat network found that it was set up on false assumptions, including funding that was never obtained and homes that do not exist—and now my constituents are going to be left footing the bill. Does the Prime Minister agree that this latest failure shows that the Lib Dems are just not fit to govern and that those responsible should go?

Boris Johnson: It is not the first time that the Lib Dems have campaigned on homes that do not exist or will never exist, if I think of their campaign in Chesham and Amersham. I will certainly look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises.

Paul Blomfield: In a recent ITV interview, the Prime Minister was asked about my constituent Jenni Garratt. Jenni is a victim of the cladding scandal. Just before last Christmas, her building was evacuated because of safety concerns. She has been forced to pay £5,000 for a waking watch and alarms. She has to find £1,200 a year for car parking she can no longer access. The work needed to make her building safe is being blocked by the actions of her freeholder. She does not know the costs she will face, but they are estimated at thousands of pounds. Yet in his interview, the Prime Minister said Jenni had
“a frankly unnecessary sense of anxiety”.
So will he meet her to hear why she is worried, and do so before the Building Safety Bill completes its passage through the House?

Boris Johnson: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—[Interruption.] I certainly do. I have every sympathy, but what I think is unfair is that people such as her are placed in a position of unnecessary anxiety about their homes when they should be reassured.
I sympathise deeply with people who have to pay for waking watches and other such things. I think it is absurd. But what people should be doing is making sure that we do not unnecessarily undermine the confidence of the market and of people in these homes, because they are not unsafe. Many millions of homes are not unsafe—and the hon. Gentleman should have the courage to say so.

Mike Wood: The new police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands has chosen to cut back on stop and search across the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm that while stops and searches must be proportionate and not discriminatory, they remain an important part of keeping our streets and communities safe?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I certainly agree with that. It was a point that I raised recently with the Labour Mayor of London. We agreed on many things—he was very much out of line with the current Labour policy on lockdown, for instance—but I certainly thought that he was wrong about stop and search. We need to make sure that stop and search is part of the armoury of police options when it comes to stopping knife crime. If it is done sensitively and in accordance with the law, I believe it can be extremely valuable.

Siobhain McDonagh: Prime Minister, we can save the UK taxpayer £200 million and level up south London’s health service. St Helier Hospital is set to lose its A&E, maternity, intensive care, children’s service, renal unit and 62% of beds to healthy, wealthy Belmont, at a staggering cost of £600 million. But there is an alternative: rebuild St Helier, where health is poorest, and save £200 million. Now, it is not my job to help the Prime Minister sort out his budget, but would not this be a good place to start?

Boris Johnson: We are investing in 48 new hospitals and rebuilds. What is the hon. Lady’s job, frankly, is to vote for £36 billion of investment in the NHS, which will allow us to take our health services forward. Why would she not do that?

Robert Jenrick: I commend the Prime Minister on his diplomatic efforts in recent weeks and ask him about another serious and grave issue that was raised at the G20 in Rome: the strong likelihood of a nuclear-ready Iran within a matter of weeks or months. What will the UK do with our international partners to tackle that? If it is via an agreement, will it be stronger and more enduring than the last one? If it is not, as many people suspect, what is our plan B?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question on an issue that he knows a great deal about. This is a case of making it clear to the Iranians that there is an opportunity for them to do something that would be massively in the interests of their people and of Iran: to come back to the table and do a further agreement—a son of the joint comprehensive plan of action—and restore the JCPOA at the Vienna talks. That is what needs to happen. That is the posture of the G20 and of our friends and allies around the world.

Vicky Foxcroft: The universal credit cut is already hitting people hard. Even before the challenges of the pandemic, 39% of children in my constituency grew up in poverty. Deptford First, a local charity that I chair, has launched a fundraising campaign to support people through the winter months. The Prime Minister is well known for his abilities to attract wealthy donors to the party. Will he use those skills to boost our campaign or—even better—will he cancel the cuts?

Boris Johnson: What we have done with universal credit is abolish the old system, which unfairly taxed people on universal credit, and help people with a £1 billion tax cut. What we on this side of the House believe in is rewarding work. That is what the people of this country want to see. That is why we have put the tax cut on those who are on universal credit and that is why we are lifting the living wage. What is the Opposition’s policy on universal credit? It is not nothing; they want to abolish universal credit.

Gareth Bacon: The Mayor of London is refusing to rule out the so-called outer London charge, which would apply to all vehicles registered outside Greater London that cross the Greater London boundary. That would have terrible consequences for my Orpington constituents and those who live in the neighbouring constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup. Louie French, the excellent local candidate for the by-election, has pledged to fight that appalling proposal. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Louie French luck with that and ensure that this silly move from the Mayor of London is stopped in its tracks?

Boris Johnson: I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend, who is an old friend of mine; I have worked closely with him on London issues for many years. I know where Labour’s instincts are. It always wants to put taxes up, particularly on motorists, and I think a checkpoint Chigwell would hit working families. What the Labour Mayor of London needs to do is get a grip on TfL’s finances and stop whacking up the taxes on ordinary people in the capital city.

Martin Docherty: The Prime Minister is very much aware of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who was abducted by plainclothes   officers while shopping with his new wife in the city of Jalandhar, Punjab, on 4 November 2017. The intervening years have seen allegations of torture overlooked, and ostensibly strong words from the Prime Minister’s Government about the case overshadowed by excitement over a trade deal with the Republic of India.
As we approach the fourth anniversary of Jagtar’s arrest tomorrow with no charges having been brought in the case by the Government of India, can the Prime Minister’s Government grant the smallest of favours to Jagtar’s wife and his family in Dumbarton and declare his detention an arbitrary one?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has been running for Jagtar Singh for a long time. I say to him that the closeness of our relationship with India in no way diminishes our willingness to raise that case with the Government of India. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it the last time she was in India.

Ruth Edwards: Unlike the Opposition, I welcome the record investment in the NHS announced in the Budget. Will my right hon. Friend support my campaign for a new health centre in the village of East Leake in my constituency, where the current building is no longer big enough to serve the population? It will soon need to accommodate 3,000 new patients from new building.

Boris Johnson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will do his utmost, in the course of the coming decisions, to oblige my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) in her justified campaign for Rushcliffe and its hospital. How incredible that Labour Members continue to catcall and attack the Government when they voted against the tax rising measures that are necessary to fund our NHS! They are completely inconsistent. They have absolutely no plans and no idea.

G20 and COP26 World Leaders Summit

Boris Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the G20 summit in Rome and update the House on COP26 in Glasgow.
Almost 30 years ago, the world acknowledged the gathering danger of climate change and agreed to do what would once have been inconceivable: to regulate the atmosphere of the planet itself by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. One declaration succeeded another until, in Paris in 2015, we all agreed to seek to restrain the rise in world temperatures to 1.5° C.
Now, after all the targets and promises, and after yet more warnings from our scientists about the peril staring us in the face, we come to the reckoning. This is the moment when we must turn words into action. If we fail, Paris will have failed, and every summit going back to Rio de Janeiro in 1992 will have failed, because we will have allowed our shared aim of 1.5° to escape our grasp.
Even half a degree of extra warming would have tragic consequences. If global temperatures were to rise by 2°, our scientists forecast that we will lose virtually all the world’s coral reefs. The Great Barrier Reef and countless other living marvels would dissolve into an ever warmer and ever more acidic ocean, returning the terrible verdict that human beings lacked the will to preserve the wonders of the natural world.
In the end, it is a question of will. We have the technology to do what is necessary; all that remains in question is our resolve. The G20 summit convened by our Italian friends and COP26 partner last weekend provided encouraging evidence that the political will exists, which is vital for the simple reason that the G20 accounts for 80% of the world economy and 75% of greenhouse gas emissions. Britain was the first G20 nation to promise in law to wipe out our contribution to climate change by achieving net zero; as recently as 2019, only one other member had made a comparable pledge.
Today, 18 countries in the G20 have made specific commitments to achieve net zero and in the Rome declaration last Sunday every member acknowledged
“the key relevance of achieving global net zero greenhouse gas emissions or carbon neutrality by or around mid-century”.
To that end, the G20, including China, agreed to stop financing new international unabated coal projects by the end of this year—a vital step towards consigning coal to history—and every member repeated their commitment to the Paris target of 1.5°.
In a spirit of co-operation, the summit reached other important agreements. The G20 will levy a minimum corporation tax rate of 15%, ensuring that multinational companies make a fair contribution wherever they operate. Over 130 countries and jurisdictions have now joined the arrangement, showing what we can achieve together when the will exists.
The G20 adopted a target of vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against covid by the middle of next year, and the UK is on track to provide 100 million doses to that effort. By the end of the year, we will have donated over 30 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca  vaccine, and at least another 20 million will follow next year along with all 20 million doses of the Janssen vaccine ordered by the Government. The G20 also resolved to work together to ease the supply chain disruptions that have affected every member as demand recovers and the world economy gets back on its feet. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Mario Draghi for his expert handling of the summit.
But everyone will accept that far more needs to be done to spare humanity from catastrophic climate change. In the meantime, global warming is already contributing to droughts, brushfires and hurricanes, summoning an awful vision of what lies ahead if we fail to act in the time that remains. So the biggest summit that the United Kingdom has ever hosted is now under way in Glasgow, bringing together 120 world leaders with the aim of translating aspirations into action to keep the ambition of 1.5° alive. I am grateful to Glasgow City Council, Police Scotland, police across the whole of the UK and our public health bodies for making the occasion possible and for all their hard work. For millions across the world, the outcome is literally a matter of life or death. For some island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean, it is a question of national survival.
The negotiations in Glasgow have almost two weeks to run, but we can take heart from what has been achieved so far. Nations that together comprise 90% of the world economy are now committed to net zero, up from 30% when the UK took over the reins of COP. Yesterday alone, the United States and over 100 other countries agreed to cut their emissions of methane—one of the most destructive greenhouse gases—by 30% by 2030, and 122 countries with over 85% of the world’s forests agreed to end and reverse deforestation by the same deadline, backed by the greatest ever commitment of public funds to the cause. I hope that will trigger even more from the private sector.
India has agreed to transform her energy system to derive half her power from renewable sources, keeping  a billion tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. The UK has doubled our commitment to international climate finance to £11.6 billion, and we will contribute another £1 billion if the economy grows as is forecast. We have launched our clean green initiative, which will help the developing world to build new infrastructure in an environmentally friendly way, and we will invest £3 billion of public money to unlock billions more from the private sector.
The UK has asked the world for action on coal, cars, cash and trees, and we have begun to make substantial, palpable progress on three out of the four, but the negotiations in Glasgow have a long way to go and far more must be done. Whether we can summon the collective wisdom and will to save ourselves from an avoidable disaster still hangs in the balance. We will press on with the hard work until the last hour.

Angela Rayner: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of this statement, and for updating the House on the G20 summit in Rome. It cannot be overstated how crucial the next week and a half is. I am pleased that there has been some progress as the Prime Minister outlined, but  the next 10 days need to move beyond prepacked  announcements. This is an opportunity for Britain, alongside our friends and allies around the world, to deliver historic change. By taking action to reduce emissions right now in this decade, we can avoid the worst effects of climate change. That cannot just be a political ambition; it is a necessity for humanity.
As the G20 ends and COP26 continues, I assure the Prime Minister that all Labour Members are desperate for it to be a success. We hope that our negotiations can bring people together and deliver urgent solutions to the biggest challenge our world has ever faced. However, there is some cause for concern. The G20 needed to be a springboard to COP26, and a real opportunity to show Britain’s diplomatic strength in bringing people together and applying pressure where it is needed. We need to convince the big polluters to meet the commitment to 1.5°, to find solutions to phase out fossil fuels, to ensure a just transition for workers, and to create a fairer and greener economy. However, the G20 did not achieve that, and the Prime Minister is failing in his efforts to convince world leaders that more must be done. He has welcomed commitments for the distant future, and I accept that, but he knows all too well that we need to halve carbon emissions now, and at least by the end of this decade, if we are to keep global temperatures down. It is time for urgent climate action now, not more climate delay.
We all know how difficult it is to convince the world to curtail carbon emissions, but it is our responsibility to do so. It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to influence world leaders and lead by example. As we try to convince other countries to phase out coal, the Government are refusing to make their mind up about coalmines within their borders. They could have followed the lead of the Welsh Labour Government and changed planning policy to ensure that no new coalmines were developed, but they did not. As we try to convince big emitters to do more on reducing emissions, unfortunately this Government are agreeing a trade deal with Australia that removes key climate pledges. They are undermining our messages by giving a free pass to our friends. When Britain must convince the wealthiest nations in the world to pledge more money to help developing countries cut their emissions and adapt to climate change, what have this Government done? They cut development aid that would have funded vital climate projects. How does the Prime Minister expect to convince others to do more, when he is setting such a poor example?
I also want to raise global vaccinations. Last week the G20 agreed a vague promise to explore ways to accelerate global vaccination against covid-19, yet in some of the world’s poorest countries, less than 3% of people have received even one dose of the vaccine. We all know that we live in a globalised world, where the more the virus spreads, the greater the threat of new variants. We are not safe from covid here until people are safe from covid everywhere. There is no more time for rhetoric; it is time for action. The Prime Minister mentioned our efforts on vaccines, but last week it was revealed that the UK is lagging behind all other G7 countries bar one in sharing surplus vaccines with poor countries. That is shameful. Our fantastic scientists who developed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine are being let down by our Prime Minister’s actions. We need booster jabs in Manchester, and vaccines shared with Madagascar. It is now time for actions, not words. As the world gathers  over the next two weeks, we all hope for the breakthrough that we need. Britain has a proud history of building alliances and standing up for what is right, and I have no doubt we will be able to do that again. I wish the Prime Minister well in his efforts, and I ask him to pay attention and go for the detail on this. If he fails to deliver the change we need through this conference, we will all pay the price.

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Lady asks me to go for the detail, but having said some kind things about her approach just now, after listening to that I think I prefer the forensic—or the pseudo-forensic—approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). She is completely in ignorance of the basic facts. We have cut our CO2 emissions by 44% on 1990 levels, largely by moving from 80% dependence on coal 50 years ago to about 1% or 2% today. It is a massive cut.
We have not cut our investment in overseas development aid for climate change funding—[Interruption.] No, we have not. We have kept it at £11.6 billion. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was paying attention to the news, but only the other day we announced another £1 billion, which we were able to do because of the growth in the economy. She is completely wrong about the facts. As for what she said about vaccines, I am afraid it is an insult to the incredible work done by the UK vaccine roll-out programme across the world. One and a half billion people have had access to cost-price vaccines, thanks to the deal that this Government did with Oxford AstraZeneca—a record no other country in the world has—to say nothing of the £548 million extra that we put into Gavi, or the extra 100 million vaccines that we are donating by June next year. This country has an absolutely outstanding record in supporting vaccination around the world. If the right hon. Lady wants to look at the detail, I urge her to go off and study it.
I welcome the broad thrust of what the right hon. Lady said about COP26. I think she was saying that she sees signs of progress but there is a lot more to do, and frankly, there she is right. Perhaps I can point to the things that have happened since G20, and draw her attention to India’s massive commitment to cut CO2 by 2030 by cleaning up its power system. I can point to the $10 billion from Japan over the next five years to support developing countries around the world, and I point also not just to Brazil, but to Russia, China and 110 countries around the world that have signed up to the forestry declaration to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. That considerable achievement will make a huge difference, and we will use consumer power, and the power of corporations and the private sector around the world, to effect that change.
For me, the single most important thing that came out of COP was an agreement around the world about the basic intellectual approach now being taken by the UK through the clean green initiative and what Joe Biden calls the build back better world initiative. That is the thing that offers greatest hope for humanity. We are not just putting in Government money to help countries around the world clean up, and putting in development aid money—although we are massively supporting that—but we are now leveraging in tens, perhaps hundreds, of trillions of private sector investment. That is the way to  make the difference, and if we can get that right at this COP it will be a truly remarkable thing. As I say, however, there is still a long way to go.

Edward Leigh: Given that we are now taxing people at a higher rate than at any time since we were impoverished under the Attlee Government, and given that despite the fact that we produce only 1% of global emissions and China produces 27% we are now loading further controls on our industry that are not being matched in China or India, further eroding our competitive advantage, will the Prime Minister grip all his spending Departments and ensure that we root out waste and incompetence and create a genuine enterprise, low-tax economy?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and that is why we still have among the lowest corporation taxes in the OECD, in spite of the measures that we have been obliged to take because of the pandemic. That is why we put in, for instance, the 125% super deduction for companies to invest in capital, invest in infrastructure and expand their businesses. The results—the benefits—are already being seen, just in gigabit broadband alone.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The G20 was an opportunity to build momentum ahead of the COP summit, but I think even the Prime Minister would admit that it largely failed to meet people’s demand and desire for increased global co-operation. If we are to meet the global challenges that all of humanity now faces, that needs to change, and change very quickly, with a meaningful agreement in Glasgow over the course of the coming week. All of us hope that that will be the case.
On climate change, we know that the G20 is responsible for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so it is right that the G20 members bear the biggest responsibility. Countries that have contributed the least to this climate crisis must not be left to pay the biggest price. That is why there has to be a commitment to climate justice and why that is so important.
In Scotland, we recently doubled our climate justice fund to £6 million per year, providing £24 million over the Scottish Parliament Session. But the commitments from the largest nations in the G20 always seem to be heavily caveated. On Monday, the Prime Minister promised £1 billion in UK aid for climate finance, but—here is the catch—only if the UK economy grows as forecast. Exactly the same excuse is presented when it comes to the Government’s disgraceful policy of cuts to overseas aid. When will the UK Government stop caveating their commitment to climate justice, follow Scotland’s leadership and establish a climate justice fund?
On Afghanistan, what concrete actions and timelines were agreed to help end the terrible famine that is ripping through that country? Finally, on covid, what specific targets and timelines were agreed to rapidly increase vaccine roll-out to those nations that are being left behind in the suppression of the virus?

Boris Johnson: First, on climate finance for the world, the right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, because it is essential that the developed world supports the developing world on the path to decarbonisation. That is why the $100 billion per year is so important. Contributions such as the one we saw from the Japanese yesterday, what the French have done, what the Germans have done and what Joe Biden did the other day are important steps, but there is much more to be done. But be in no doubt: the right hon. Gentleman should be very proud of what the UK is committing—the £11.6 billion that we committed two years ago, plus another billion the day before yesterday. These are big sums now that the UK is giving, and we are way out in front.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise Afghanistan. We had sad but good discussions about Afghanistan, and we are determined to work together to concert our humanitarian relief to do what we can, notwithstanding the difficulties that there are obviously going to be with our relations with the Taliban.
On the global vaccine roll-out, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the commitments made by countries around the world. I think the UK can be very proud of what we are doing on top of the 1.5 billion AstraZeneca doses, with another 100 million doses by June next year.

Desmond Swayne: To what extent does the success of the entire enterprise depend upon the promised finance to the developing world?

Boris Johnson: Very largely.

Edward Davey: I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts to try to make COP26 a success. For many of us, halting climate change has been the passion of our lives. May I ask the Prime Minister to confirm reports I have heard that the British negotiating team in Glasgow is seriously concerned that China’s proposed contribution to cutting emissions, particularly on coal, goes nowhere near fast enough or far enough? If that is the case, will he commit to working with all our partners in the west and across the world, particularly those vulnerable countries that are already watching the waves of climate change hit their shores, to take any necessary action to pressure China to make the right decision?

Boris Johnson: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman, because his political record shows that he has done a huge amount of good in this area. That is the truth of the matter, and I thank him for what he has done.
What is happening with China is very important, but it is a mixed picture and it is important not to be too negative at present. The right hon. Gentleman is right about domestic Chinese coal-fired production, and we are hoping for progress there. We are hoping that when China says that it can peak in carbon dioxide output before 2030, that date of “before” is correct and it is considerably nearer now than 2030. That is where the work is being done.
But what is interesting is that when China made the commitment to stop overseas financing for coal, that had an instant impact on many of China’s friends and partners around the Asia-Pacific region, which took the  signal and have also stopped overseas financing for coal. It is that climate of the power of the room in the COP that is starting to make a difference, but whether it is going to be possible at this COP to get China to make the commitments that are really necessary, I am afraid it is just too early to say.

Liam Fox: I welcome all the progress made so far at COP26 and congratulate all those involved, including my right hon. Friend, but what will we do if we do not get agreement on article 6 and persuade countries such as China to properly price carbon into their economies? Our businesses in the UK are carrying their share of costs to deal with climate change. Why should we allow them to be undercut by competitors that keep their prices down by using highly polluting industrial production techniques? Surely that is not something that the free world economies can tolerate.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend knows a great deal about this issue, and he is right to draw attention to article 6 and the carbon credit issue. That is something on which our negotiators will be working flat out until the final hour of COP.

Chris Bryant: One of the terrible effects of climate change is felt in south Wales valleys seats, where extreme weather conditions and heavy rain have destabilised some of the disused coal tips. People live in terror of another Aberfan, and I know the Prime Minister shares that fear. The majority of the dangerous tips are in my local authority area. I just wonder whether he would be prepared to meet me, the leader of the local council and the other Members from Rhondda Cynon Taf, specifically to discuss how we can make sure that all those tips are safe. I really do ask him for that meeting.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has raised this issue with me several times. I will see what I can do to oblige him. This is something that I do want to try to fix, but it is primarily something that the Welsh Government should be addressing themselves. I will talk to the Welsh Government and come back to him.

Philip Hollobone: I strongly congratulate the Prime Minister on throwing his heart and soul at COP26; no one can have worked harder.
The UK is responsible for 1% of global carbon emissions; China is responsible for 28%. Since 2000, two thirds of the increase in global carbon emissions has come from China. Is China’s commitment to reach peak coal in 2030 an aspiration or a binding target?

Boris Johnson: I think what President Xi Jinping would say is that China keeps its promises. We will have to hope that that is true. I think the people of the world will want to hold all of us, all Governments, to account, but my hon. Friend is completely right to focus on the particular pressure that China faces from us and from the whole world.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent conversion to the climate cause. I agree with him that the clock is indeed at one  minute to midnight, which begs the question as to why his snooze button was on for so long. He will know that the first rule of diplomacy is to walk the talk. Will he now take this opportunity to put real credibility behind his stirring words to lead by example and to commit now, finally, to reversing the decision on the Cambo oilfield—yes or no? Very simple.

Boris Johnson: What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels of all kinds, and we will be going for complete net zero in our power production by 2035, moving beyond coal by 2024. I think it was a Scottish National party Minister who said that oil was still a part of Scotland’s future. I will say nothing about the Cambo oilfield. What I will say is that there is a future for hydrocarbons in so far as we can liberate hydrogen and make clean energy.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership of COP, particularly the achievement of getting 100 countries to sign up to the methane pledge. He will know, however, that some of the biggest emitters have not signed up. When will the power of the room, which he described a moment ago, be on those countries to sign up to the pledge as well?

Boris Johnson: Now. We are just going to keep going. This is a rolling series of negotiations. We are ringing people up the whole time. COP is in full flow at the moment.

Fleur Anderson: The Prime Minister has not yet mentioned water resilience, yet it is at the top of the agenda for many of the countries most affected by the climate emergency. What is his assessment of funding for water resilience projects? Will he commit not to cut but increase funding for water resilience?

Boris Johnson: We support water resilience projects around the world, as part of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and had a good discussion on the issue of water resilience and other aspects of climate change resilience with vulnerable countries over the last few days.

James Gray: The Prime Minister knows very well that the north of Scotland is closer to the Arctic circle than it is to London. For any delegate at COP26 who doubts the climate emergency, all they have to do is glance at the retreating ice or the melting cover frost, and the methane being released as a result, to be convinced that this emergency really is happening. The Chinese in particular will benefit from the withdrawal of ice as the northern sea route opens up, particularly for bulk carriers carrying coal. Does the Prime Minister therefore not agree with me that the Chinese have a doubly important moral obligation to stick by their commitment to reduce the production of coal in China, otherwise we in the west will be burning their coal?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right to point out the consequences for the world of the retreat of the ice towards the north pole. I am afraid that will offer opportunities not just for China but  ourselves. Scapa Flow and other parts of Scotland will potentially become very important for sea traffic of a clean, green variety.

Sammy Wilson: In pursuit of dramatic reductions in the miniscule carbon dioxide emissions produced by this country, ordinary people are facing higher petrol prices, higher energy prices, restrictions on what they can drive, the replacement of gas boilers and higher green taxes with declining incomes. Can the Prime Minister understand their frustration and disdain that those who tell them that they must bear those burdens fly into Glasgow in private jets and ferry around town in gas-guzzling cavalcades? More fundamentally, does he really believe, given the huge natural forces that continually change the world’s climate, that by reducing carbon dioxide we can somehow or other turn the world’s thermostat up and down at will?

Boris Johnson: First of all, this country is moving to zero-emission vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman talks about gas-guzzlers; we are supporting jet zero aviation. His big objection is to the science. He is obviously a complete climate sceptic. He should look at the graph that David Attenborough produced on the first day of the summit, showing the clear correlation between the huge anthropogenic spike in CO2 and the current rise in temperatures, and the way that temperatures have tracked CO2 volumes in the air over the last thousands of years. The science is absolutely clear. I think the people of this country know that it would be an economic disaster not to address it. What the people of this country know is that clean, green technology can deliver higher wages and fantastic jobs for generations to come. They see a great future in this.

Stephen Metcalfe: I want to reinforce the point the Prime Minister has just made. Will he reassure my constituents that the goal of achieving net zero is not a burden to be borne, but an opportunity to be grasped to create new innovative jobs and new sectors in which we can lead the world?

Boris Johnson: Our green industrial revolution alone, the £26 billion we are putting in, generates 440,000 more jobs in battery technology, electric vehicle manufacture, wind farms and maintenance. The opportunities are vast for this country and we are at the cutting edge.

Janet Daby: I welcome the statement today, but does the Prime Minister believe, like I do, that it is important to encourage more people to use rail, instead of other carbon-intensive transport methods? If so, why is he cutting duty on domestic flights, or will he now rethink that decision?

Boris Johnson: There is a very clear climate reason for putting up duty on long-haul flights, because they account for 96% of emissions. In the case of our own United Kingdom, with its far flung islands represented by some distinguished Members on the Opposition Benches, it is a useful thing to remove barriers to movement.

Bill Wiggin: Given the phenomenal success to end and reverse deforestation, I was tempted to tease my right hon. Friend about build back beavers. However, will he meet me to discuss what can be done, using institutions such as Kew Gardens, to reverse the spread of deserts through the better planting of trees?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. That is a brilliant idea. Kew has played an amazing midwife role over the centuries in taking plants from one part of the world, nurturing them and then planting them with huge advantage in other parts of the world. That is certainly something I would be happy to take up with him.

Alistair Carmichael: The Prime Minister is absolutely right that this is a moment for turning words into action. One very important but quite small action that he and his Government could take now is the creation of a ringfenced pot for the development of tidal stream energy in the next round of contract for difference options. This is a decision that has to be taken by the end of this month. Will the Prime Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to make sure that that happens?

Boris Johnson: This is a point I have now heard several times from those on the Opposition Benches. Without having perhaps all the technical expertise, I am very impressed by the tidal proposals I have seen. What I will undertake to the right hon. Gentleman is not an absolute commitment on contract for difference or the strike price for tidal power, but I will certainly go away and look at it again.

Michael Fabricant: Well done, Prime Minister, on motivating people and delivering that which others were saying could not be delivered at COP26 so far, just a couple of days into a two-week programme. May I invite him to visit Rolls-Royce, which is working on developing a 100% sustainable fuel jet engine for aviation, and to put his considerable weight—I do not mean that in a personal manner; I mean as Prime Minister—behind the gigafactory proposal for Coventry in the West Midlands Combined Authority?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. It was, in fact, only a couple of weeks ago that the entire Cabinet was in Bristol with Rolls-Royce, looking at what it is doing with GKN and other companies on sustainable aviation. We are also looking actively at what we can do to support a gigafactory in the Coventry area, but obviously, there are commercial discussions under way.

Liam Byrne: As Chair of the G7 and of COP, the Prime Minister will know that the world community is $20 billion short of what is needed for the vaccination programme, and we have missed the target of $100 billion promised for climate finance. The International Monetary Fund has given the world a shot in the arm with $650 billion of special drawing rights, which the Prime Minister helped to push for. The UK has been given £20 billion, more than the entire community of low-income countries put  together, but why are we being so slow and sluggish in recycling that money back to the IMF so that it can be put to good use? We are behind France and America; we are a laggard when we should be leading.

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is putting hard cash into supporting countries around the world. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the SDRs. We are looking at that as well, but we are prioritising cash up front.

Mark Jenkinson: My right hon. Friend knows that I am a fervent supporter of his efforts for the UK to lead the world in decarbonisation, and I know that he would not wish to impoverish anyone here or abroad on the way. No country has yet leapfrogged our path to prosperity from wood, coal and gas to nuclear. In asking developing countries to consign coal power to history, my concern is that we risk sustaining their poverty if we do not provide an alternative. Does he agree that, with his historic climate finance agreements and our existing development aid, we have a huge opportunity to export UK small modular reactor technology around the world to hasten their path to prosperity instead?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for an exceedingly thoughtful question. He is absolutely right in the logic of what he says. We must help the developing world to leapfrog. All sorts of technologies are very attractive, including the one that he suggests. The opportunity there is to generate fantastic British jobs as well.

Deidre Brock: Open Democracy recently reported the Prime Minister’s former colleague in the EU Vote Leave campaign, Nigel Farage, as saying that a referendum on green taxes
“could well be my latest campaign”.
We are hearing increasingly loud objections from the so-called net zero scrutiny group from among his ranks of MPs. The Institute of Economic Affairs said recently that it would
“continue to challenge the ropey economics”
of net zero. What will the Prime Minister do to challenge those siren voices from among his supporters?

Boris Johnson: I study the people’s feelings about this. What so changed in this COP from Paris, which I attended, or from Copenhagen, which I was also at, is that this time, it is from the public. I have great respect for colleagues around the House who say that this is all going too far, too fast and that people cannot afford it. Actually, I do not think that we can afford not to do it. I also think that it is economically a massive opportunity for this country and that that is where people increasingly are. Calls for a referendum on this will fall on stony ground.

Richard Graham: I spent the past couple of days at COP26 with south-east Asian nations’ representatives. The situation is exactly as the Prime Minister described, with real progress on cash, coal and trees and particularly momentum in signing up to the forestry declaration. My right hon. Friend will know that the UK pavilion is symbolically opposite next year’s G20 Chair, Indonesia. Does he agree that using   the clean, green finance initiative is a real opportunity for us to do more to help them to transition from coal-fired energy to renewable energy, often in collaboration with UK partners on wind, solar and marine energy?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done with ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations—partners. He has absolutely been leading the charge for us in that region, particularly with Indonesia, and they are great partners of ours. What is coming out of COP is the idea that countries who are finding it tough, as he said, to move beyond coal need a coalition of countries to help them, with a portfolio of programmes that they need to get done, whether it is hydropower or carbon capture and storage—whatever it is—that we can help to finance and de-risk, in order to leverage in the trillions from the private sector, as we did with wind power in our country. People are seeing this model as the way we can do it—not with endless grants and handouts from Governments in the richer countries around the world, but through stimulating the private sector to come in and deliver a quantum leap in the infrastructure concerned.

Jack Dromey: GKN-Melrose has announced its intention to proceed with the closure of the Erdington plant, which employs 519 loyal, long-serving workers in an area with the fifth-highest level of deprivation in Britain, and to export production to Poland, which is still burning coal on a grand scale for years to come. Does the Prime Minister therefore understand the dismay of the workers concerned? With the automotive industry in transition to an electric future, does he agree that we need a supply chain here in Britain, employing workers here in Britain, manufacturing here in Britain, as part of a green industrial revolution here in Britain?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I passionately agree with that. GKN does an amazing job across the country, particularly in delivering some of the most difficult solutions, such as sustainable aviation. We need to ensure that we have the ecosystem of gigafactories and electric vehicle manufacturing capabilities, and all the supply chains here in Britain, but with an energy cost that allows those businesses to be competitive. That applies to steel, automotive and everybody else, and I am afraid that, at the moment, the differential between our domestic users’ electricity costs and industrial energy costs is too high, and we have to fix it.

Jason McCartney: As chair of the all-party group for woods and trees, I thank the Prime Minister and the negotiating teams for their fantastic work in tackling deforestation. I also welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the northern forest, planting 50 million trees across the north, hopefully with many of them in South Yorkshire. Will he join me in appealing to community groups and schools to get involved with the Queen’s Green Canopy project, as we all plant a tree for the jubilee?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. Planting a tree for the jubilee is a wonderful thing to do; we should all be doing it. We want to plant 36,000 hectares of trees every year as part of our contribution—one of the many ways we are contributing—to the fight against climate change, and to beautify our landscape.

Kerry McCarthy: As chair of the all-party group on small island developing states, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister acknowledged the imminent threat to them in his statement. Two things would really help them: one is to have access to the finance that hopefully is now on the table—because, as countries with very limited resources, it is very difficult, they tell me, to get their hands on the money and to do the bids—and the other is to develop blue finance. We know that the City of London leads on green finance. Blue finance for the blue economy and marine conservation would really help them, and we could take a lead on that.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is completely right about the imperative to help the small island states. I must say that, at COP and in the last few months, they have been incredibly valuable in getting the world to focus—the Maldives, the Seychelles, Bangladesh, where people face catastrophic flooding, Mauritius and Barbados, which was brilliant the other day. They are helping to focus minds on the issue and attract massive sums of investment.

Mark Pawsey: The UK can be very proud of the commitments that we have already made, but some of our actions are in danger of making our manufacturing and particularly our heavy industry uncompetitive. May I ask the Prime Minister once again whether there is any significance in the absence from COP26 of leaders of our industrial competitors such as China and Russia? Is he confident that they can be persuaded to do more after the conference to provide a more level playing field?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for the point that he makes, and I understand why he should be anxious, but I talked to both President Xi and President Putin and it was clear: they said that the pandemic precluded them from coming. I understand the situation that they are in. They have very senior negotiators in Glasgow as we speak—Xie is a very senior operative  in the Chinese system—and we have to hope for results. In the end, the change is going to be driven not just by the feelings of people in the western democracies, but by the political pressure and the pressure from business that is already being felt in China, and in Russia as well.

David Linden: I was pleased to see reference in the Prime Minister’s statement to action on trees. He will be aware that in Scotland we produce 80% of woodland planting across these islands, not least because of small groups such as the one at Mount Vernon community hall, which has made a real effort on biodiversity. What more can the Prime Minister do elsewhere in the UK to try to get action on tree planting and follow the lead of Scotland, and indeed of Mount Vernon?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate Scottish tree-planting groups on the initiatives that they have taken. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that huge numbers of trees are planted in Scotland. We want to see the rest of the UK catch up and do better; I am afraid that the rates did decline a bit during the pandemic. We have to accelerate. What my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said just now about “Plant a tree for the jubilee” is absolutely right.

David Morris: Later today in this Chamber, we will talk about nuclear. That shows that the Government are now looking forward to the future—we have two nuclear power stations in Heysham—but I would also like to draw to the Prime Minister’s attention the wondrous work that we are doing to prepare for the Eden project in Morecambe. I know that I invited him last week at Prime Minister’s questions, but I am still pushing it: Boris, come and see us in Morecambe.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his unrelenting invitation. Of course I will do my utmost to oblige him; he is a great campaigner for clean power. As he knows, we are taking forward plans for SMRs as well.

Lilian Greenwood: Transport makes up the largest share of UK carbon emissions, but rail travel is clean and green, so I ask again: why on earth is the Prime Minister choosing to make it cheaper to take domestic flights, while failing to set out a proper plan for rail electrification, failing to confirm a high-speed rail line to the east midlands and the north, and putting up rail fares?

Boris Johnson: We are investing massively in rail in the way that I described at PMQs earlier, not just with HS2, but with Northern Powerhouse Rail and the integrated rail plan. The hon. Lady objects to domestic air travel, but the vision that she should support is the idea of moving away from using tonnes of kerosene to hurl planes into the air. We can do it with other approaches, and that is what we should be following.

Derek Thomas: I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership around the world, particularly in getting the world’s biggest polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. My constituents are keen to move forward and transition to a decarbonised lifestyle. Does he agree that getting information to them is key? There are many times when all of us, as consumers, purchase things from China that may well be available here in the UK, but we do not understand their in-built carbon footprint. Does he agree that information about carbon on items that we purchase is important for consumers?

Boris Johnson: Schools in Cornwall that I have been talking to have a fantastic understanding of what Cornwall is doing to cut carbon. There are amazing projects in Cornwall, and we are also making sure that in education—in classes—kids understand the in-built carbon cost of the goods that they buy.

Stephen Farry: At present, the UK does not yet have measures in place to reach carbon neutrality by the year 2050. Indeed, last week, the Chancellor could not even mention climate change once in an hour-long speech on the Budget. Surely the UK should be offering leadership in this area by putting in place a comprehensive green new deal that combines economic and social policy, alongside measures to combat climate change.

Boris Johnson: I do not know what planet the hon. Gentleman has been on. He is totally wrong. This Government have helped to cut the UK’s emissions of  carbon dioxide by almost half from 1990 levels, which is an astonishing thing to have done. We have the most ambitious nationally determined contribution of any country in the EU—78% by 2035 on 1990 levels—and we are doing it through all the measures that he knows. Has he not heard about what we are going to do on zero-emission vehicles or what we are doing on our power emissions? I think he needs to look at what is happening. Yes, of course there is more to do. As  for green bonds, we issued one the other day and got £10 billion out of it—so just keep up.

Mike Wood: As well as cars, the world will need clean, smart urban transport if we are to meet the climate challenge. Companies such as the one behind the Westfield PODs in Dudley South are developing products that can succeed, thrive and help us to decarbonise, but too often the regulatory framework lags behind the innovation. Will the Prime Minister work with Ministers and our international partners to develop international type approval standards so that these products can succeed and we can decarbonise transport on an urban level as well as lead on personal cars?

Boris Johnson: I agree 100%. I am looking forward to seeing the Westfield PODs and their means of conveying human beings around, although I cannot quite imagine what they are. What we want in this country is regulators for growth, and for green growth. We need a much more proactive approach that engages with brilliant ideas like that.

Cat Smith: Moving to rail travel and away from more carbon-intensive forms of transport will be essential if we are to meet our ambitions to tackle the climate emergency. Two years ago, the Prime Minister visited Poulton and announced his commitment to reopen the railway line to Fleetwood. Can he tell my Fleetwood constituents what progress he is making with that, and when they can expect to catch the train from Fleetwood to the entire national rail network?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is a general programme of Beeching reversals around the country. I will get back to the hon. Lady as soon as I can about what is happening in Poulton, but this is the biggest investment in rail for a century or more.

Henry Smith: An estimated 15% of global carbon emissions come from livestock production around the world—more than all transportation put together. On the former, what discussions have been had at COP26 with our international partners on reductions? On the latter, what discussions have there been about the rest of the world taking the lead from the United Kingdom in sustainable aviation technology?

Boris Johnson: On livestock emissions, my hon. Friend is right that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. It degrades quite fast, so it is not as bad as CO2 in some ways, but we do need to cut methane emissions and we have committed to doing it by 30%. Agriculture is a particularly difficult problem, but there are ways of doing that, without moving away from livestock farming.  There are things we can do with breeding and other techniques to reduce methane emissions and we are certainly looking at that.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister is right to tell the House, and indeed the world, how exciting these promises on reforestation and methane reduction are. However, he will recall that, 12 years ago, when the rich countries committed themselves to transferring $100 billion to the poor countries every year, there was no mechanism for measuring the progress of that transfer, and the world failed. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the legacy will be, particularly in respect of deforestation? Will there be a proper mechanism to hold to account President Bolsonaro, or the Indonesians, or any other country, wherever it may be?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has made an incredibly important point. There are two ways of holding Governments to account, whether they are the Governments of China, Brazil or Russia, or indeed ourselves. First, it is not only the Governments who have signed up, but corporations—the big commodities corporations, such as Cargill. They have agreed no longer to use products that are sourced as a result of deforestation, and consumers will hold them to account, as well as Governments, for what they do.
Secondly, the financial institutions, worth trillions—Barclays, Aviva, and many others around the world—have agreed that they will not finance projects that depend on deforestation. Again, their investors and shareholders, and everyone involved with them, will hold them to account for what they do. If they cheat and invest in deforestation, they will suffer, because, as I said to the House earlier, what is changing now is the power of the consumer, the power of the voters, the power of the world —the power of those who want their Governments to do the right thing now.

Simon Baynes: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the staff and pupils at Ysgol Dinas Brân school in Llangollen, whom I visited recently, on the excellent work that they are doing in studying climate change and working closely with Denbighshire County Council to ensure that their school operates on a carbon-neutral basis?

Boris Johnson: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Ysgol Dinas Brân, which I know from my own abortive attempt to win the seat that my hon. Friend now represents so well. I thank those at the school for what they are doing, and I think they are quite right to set the example they are setting. All new schools in our country are carbon-neutral.

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 summit and COP26, and also for listening so carefully to the suggestions from these Benches. I am sure that he, too, is disappointed that the G20 could not agree on an end date for domestic fossil fuel use. Will he be brave, show leadership, and set an end date for the extraction and domestic use of all fossil fuels in the UK?

Boris Johnson: We will have no fossil fuels at all in our power generation system from 2035 onwards.

Geraint Davies: Six per cent. of global GDP is spent on fossil fuel subsidies, which is destroying our planet, and China spends more on them than the United States, Russia and the European Union combined. Will the Prime Minister take leadership in reducing fossil fuel subsidies? In particular, will he support the carbon border taxes that are being promoted by the EU, so that, for instance, UK steel made in Wales is not displaced by Chinese steel made from coal, which has twice the carbon footprint, and we can protect local jobs and save the planet through greener trade?

Boris Johnson: I think that our steel companies have done a great job in trying to reduce their carbon footprint. That is extremely hard for steel corporations, because they are one of the biggest emitters that we have. We must move towards zero-carbon steelmaking, while keeping a steelmaking industry in this country. The measures that the hon. Gentleman has described—such as the carbon border adjustment levy—are certainly worth considering.

Margaret Ferrier: The United Nations Secretary-General has said that it will be very difficult to secure the commitment needed for the 1.5° goal, and, in relation to new fossil fuel excavations, that
“we don’t need more oil and gas”.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what engagement his Government are having with the oil and gas industries to support them in their efforts to decarbonise sustainably?

Boris Johnson: We talk all the time to the oil and gas industry, which has a great and proud history in this country. I believe that the future for the industry—for hydrocarbons—is moving beyond the old combustion approach and towards the extraction of clean power. That is the direction in which we should be going.

Justin Madders: It seems that we are in the last chance saloon if we are to make an impact on limiting the effect of climate change. Does the Prime Minister share my disappointment that China and India have failed to match many other countries’ commitments to reach net zero by 2050, placing their targets 10 and 20 years later? Does he agree that if the remainder of COP26 is to be a success, we need to get some movement from them on that as well?

Boris Johnson: We will continue to push on the net zero dates. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of those countries’ targets, I think we also need to look at what both of them are saying about what they will do pre-2030. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) pointed out,  that is the key issue on which we need to focus. The Indians have now made a big commitment to decarbonising their power system by 2030, and the hon. Gentleman has heard what we have already said in the House about the Chinese commitment to “peak” CO2 output in 2030 or before. The question is, how long before? Both those countries have made substantial progress, but obviously it is not yet enough.

Jonathan Edwards: In his statement, the Prime Minister said:
“We have the technology to do what is necessary: all that remains in question is our resolve.”
With that in mind, why do the British Government not extend the favourable financing model being proposed for nuclear energy generation to other technologies, such as the proposed Swansea tidal lagoon?

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was very attracted to the Swansea tidal lagoon model, but it is extremely expensive for the energy it produces. I see Opposition Members shaking their heads. If they can produce plans that show a more economical way of doing it, I shall be only too happy to study them.

Sam Tarry: Earlier today at COP26, young people from the group Green New Deal Rising tried to ask the Chancellor directly why he was continuing to subsidise fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry to such an extent. Instead of engaging with those young people, whose generation could be the first to die from climate change rather than old age, the Chancellor promptly banned them from attending his talk. I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the Chancellor could instead engage with that generation of young people, and move on from greenwash towards a green new deal to raise Britain up and meet our climate obligations.

Boris Johnson: It is precisely for the sake of that generation—with whom, by the way, every member of this Government and, I am sure, Members throughout the House engage all the time on this issue—that we are doing this.
I am actually starting to think that we can fix this. I was pretty gloomy a while back, but I do now think that we have the technology, and we certainly have the finance. I think we have a growing package of solutions that we can bring to bear, and I think it will be of massive benefit to young children growing up in this country. I hope so, because one of the things I worry about is that young people in this country are mentally very badly affected by the prospect of serious climate change. I think that it preys on their minds. We need to lift that burden from them and show them that there is a more hopeful alternative—and I really think that it is starting to appear.

Schools and Educational Settings (Essential Infrastructure and Opening During Emergencies)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Halfon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for educational settings including early years, schools, colleges and universities to be classified as essential infrastructure and remain open to all students during public health and other national emergencies; and for connected purposes.
Between the start of the pandemic and July 2021, British children were out of their classrooms for almost half of the available school days as a result of nationwide shutdowns and isolations. The majority of the country’s universities switched to remote learning, with many students still not having returned to full face-to-face teaching. Those closures wielded a hammer blow to our children’s and young people’s education and wellbeing. The mechanisms this Bill will put in place will safeguard the education, mental health and life chances of those already hardest hit and of future generations.
Let me take a moment to give special thanks to the teachers and support staff who did all they could to keep children learning over the past 18 months. I especially welcome the support for the Bill of Children’s Commissioners past and present, of two former Children’s Ministers and significantly, of the parents group, UsforThem, which has campaigned day and night to keep schools fully open and our children learning in the classroom as they should be.
It is beyond doubt that for those who engaged in online learning, less material was covered than would have been covered in the classroom. Moreover, many children could not participate in online learning at all. School closures and the move to online learning increased the existing inequalities between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their better-off peers. The facts speak for themselves and testify to what parents know instinctively. A tablet is no substitute for in-person schooling and the inspiration and guidance that teachers and support staff provide. A laptop cannot replace the enriching, nurturing and skills-building environment that the school community gives to our children, enabling them to thrive and develop to reach their potential. A screen cannot replace the social interaction and friendships that are the essential building blocks of childhood. Perhaps worst of all, school closures increased the existing inequalities between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their better-off peers. We must face and address head on the brutal reality that school closures have been a national disaster for our children.
Over the last 18 months, the four horsemen of the education apocalypse have galloped towards our young people, threatening their futures and holding them back from climbing the ladder of opportunity. The negative impacts of the pandemic are stark. School closures have contributed to a widening attainment gap and worsening mental health, not to mention numerous safeguarding hazards and diminished life chances. Even prior to the pandemic, disadvantaged pupils were already 18 months of learning behind their better-off peers by the time   they took their GCSEs. The pandemic has turned the attainment gap into a chasm, undoing the significant amount of progress made over this last decade.
Recent research published by the Education Policy Institute has shown that at national level the average learning losses for primary school pupils were 3.4 months in maths and 2.2 months in reading. For disadvantaged pupils, learning loss was even greater, with 4.2 months lost in maths and 2.7 months in reading. A tsunami of mental health problems now threatens to overwhelm our young people. One in six children now has a probable mental health disorder, up from one in nine in 2017. The Department for Education itself has concluded that the evidence for the impacts of school closures on mental health and wellbeing is “substantial” and “consistent”.
Schools and educational settings play a vital role in safeguarding our young people from harm. Without that safety net, too many vulnerable youngsters have slipped through the cracks. Devastating figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that 100,000 children have failed to return to school, for the most part, since schools reopened. During the first lockdown, 94% of vulnerable children were not in school. A significant increase in social service referrals, domestic abuse and child safeguarding concerns has been reported between April 2020 and March 2021, which the directors of children’s services across the country have linked to the pandemic restrictions and the closure of childcare settings.
It is estimated that school closures will cost our young people between £78 billion and £154 billion in lost earnings over the course of their lifetimes, and those figures are for an optimistic scenario. In the worst case, as much as £463 billion could be lost. Report after report speaks to these harms, but they were not an unfortunate inevitability of an international public health emergency. Our children have missed more than double the amount of school as children in other countries, including France, Spain, Austria and Lithuania. British children have missed more school than any other country in Europe except Italy.
I come to my Schools and Educational Settings (Essential Infrastructure and Opening During Emergencies) Bill. Currently, the term “essential infrastructure” is used in our legislation to describe the facilities and systems necessary for a country to function, and upon which our daily lives depend. It would be inconceivable to close power stations, hospitals or food retailers during a time of crisis, and rightly so—they are lifelines to our communities. The educational devastation of the last 18 months has made it abundantly clear that for children, families and society, schools must also be seen as lifelines. In guidance issued in 2020, the Government defined educational institutions as “essential infrastructure” along with providers of power, healthcare and water. But despite this nominal definition, during the first and third lockdowns schools were closed to most pupils while other essential infrastructure remained open.
It is our duty now to treat our schools as essential infrastructure, both in word, and more importantly, in deed. To that end, this Bill will recognise and define educational settings as essential infrastructure in practice by enshrining in statute that we must never close our schools again, save in the most dire and exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the Bill will put in place a triple lock of protections. This will mean that before  any national or regional closure, the advice of the Children’s Commissioner must first be sought on whether such a closure is necessary, and laid before Parliament. We rightly follow the science and advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation when it comes to our health, so it is only logical that we must also follow the advice provided by those with the best interests of our children at the heart of their mandate. Secondly, any proposed school closure must be debated and approved by the House. Thirdly, in the event of an agreed closure, every three weeks that schools remain closed, the Education Secretary must return to Parliament, having sought the advice of the Children’s Commissioner, to seek its re-approval for a continued closure.
This triple lock will ensure that the needs and rights of children and young people are considered and upheld. It will mean that the relevant experts are consulted and their advice acted upon. It will ensure that this House is fully involved and accountable for any decisions to close schools and disrupt schooling. Lastly, it will make certain that any disruption will be tightly time-limited. These measures are no less than our children deserve. Diogenes once said that
“the foundation of every state is the education of its youth”.
We must learn from our experiences over the course of the pandemic to ensure that we prioritise children’s education. We owe it to our young people to safeguard the educational futures that covid-19 put on hold. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Robert Halfon, Edward Timpson, Tim Loughton, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Christian Wakeford, Tom Hunt, Brendan Clarke-Smith, Greg Smith, Siobhan Baillie, Miriam Cates, Munira Wilson and David Warburton present the Bill.
Robert Halfon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 184).

Committee on Standards

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the debate begins, I think it would be helpful if I set out the procedure to be followed. The Leader of the House will move the motion. I will also allow enough time at the end of the debate to ensure that the Chair of the Committee on Standards has the opportunity to respond.
Members are, of course, free to consider and, if they wish, criticise the process that the House has set in place to consider Members’ conduct. However, there is a long tradition of not attacking individuals, such as Officers of the House, who are not here to defend themselves and do not have the ability to do so. They are doing the job that the House itself has set them to do. I remind the House that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Please let us keep calm, keep sensible and make sure the House has a debate in which we are respectful and tolerant to each other.
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Dame Andrea Leadsom. Under the terms of the business motion agreed yesterday, the amendment will be moved formally at the end of the debate, but of course she will speak sooner.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That this House–
(1) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797);
(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 212; and
(3) accordingly suspends Mr Owen Paterson from the service of the House for a period of thirty sitting days.
As Leader of the House of Commons, it is important that I move this motion to facilitate debate on the report by the Committee on Standards. I have said before that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life, which is why the process for this House to consider standards infractions is of the utmost importance. It must be fair and robust, and it must command respect on both sides of the House. There must be tough and robust checks against lobbying for profit, and there must be a proper process to scrutinise and, if necessary, discipline those who do not follow  the rules.
However, it is also my role as Leader of the House to listen to the concerns and thoughts of Members on both sides of the House, which are now too numerous to ignore. Since the publication of this report, many hon. Members have expressed their concern about the way in which it was prepared, as is evident in the amendment to the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).
Today I come not to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) but to consider the process by which he has been tried. It is not for me to judge him—others have done that—but was the process a fair one? “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Any disciplinary process concerned, as it is, with people’s jobs and livelihoods must be fair and must respect basic principles of natural justice.
The concerns raised with me in this case and other standards cases by hon. Members from Government and Opposition parties include: the lack of examination of witnesses; the unused mechanism for the appointment of an investigatory panel; the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing; the length of time taken and the lack of continuity in participation and investigations; the application of aggravating factors; and the absence of the right of appeal.

Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. Friend refers to the lack of appeal, which is a point I have heard on a number of occasions. Are not the oversight of the Committee on Standards and, indeed, the judgment of this House both effective appeal processes in this matter?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Committee on Standards is clearly not an appeal process, because it is the Committee’s report, not the commissioner’s report, that comes before us. The commissioner is the adviser to the Committee and is supervised by the Committee.
I wish this Chamber, as my hon. Friend suggests, were the court of appeal, but as this matter has been discussed we have seen how quickly what happens in this Chamber becomes partisan. [Laughter.] Opposition Members cackle and crow, and they have made my point. It is a sadness to me that this Chamber is not, as one would hope it could be, the apolitical court of appeal for standards cases, but the Opposition have absolutely no desire to do that. We therefore need to consider an independent appeals process, as we have with the Independent Expert Panel.

Jess Phillips: I simply ask the Leader of the House a question that I ask of all Conservative Members. Does he think he would be standing here today and making these changes if it were a Labour MP?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the hon. Lady knows me well enough to know that the answer is yes. I would have no hesitation in doing exactly the same if I thought a Labour Member had not had a proper process and had representations of that kind.

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am answering the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), so have patience.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised this point in previous debates, saying that she would have done something regardless of the party. In my view, she said that in good faith and I accepted her good faith. I hope she will do the same for me.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way.
Today’s debate could be a turning point, and not of the kind that many of us would like to see. Can the Leader of the House tell us how often this House has overturned a report of the Standards Committee with respect to the behaviour of a particular Member?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am afraid the hon. Lady has not troubled to read the amendment, which does not overturn the report of the Standards Committee. The amendment   asks whether there should be a form of appeal and sets up a Committee to consider how the standards process is working. As I said, there have been problems with the process.
On the examination, or non-examination, of witnesses, paragraphs (6) to (10) of Standing Order No. 150 allow the commissioner to appoint an investigatory panel to assist in establishing the facts relevant to an investigation. The Standards Committee is also able to request that the commissioner appoints such a panel. Under these provisions, the commissioner chairs the committee with two assessors, who advise the commissioner but have no responsibility for the findings. One would be a legal assessor and the other a senior Member of the House who would advise on parliamentary matters and be appointed by you, Mr Speaker. The commissioner would determine the procedures and could appoint counsel to assist the panel.
The Member against whom the complaint had been made would be entitled to be heard in person and would have the opportunity to call witnesses and examine other witnesses. At the conclusion of proceedings, the commissioner would report as usual. The legal assessor would report to the Standards Committee as to the extent to which the proceedings had been consistent with the principles of natural justice, which of course include the right to a fair trial under a proper and just process, and the Member assessor might report on the extent to which the proceedings had regard to the custom and practice of the House and its Members.

Martin Docherty: The Leader of the House started with a quote, and I am often reminded that what is false exists on the same judicial footing as what is right. I make no judgment about those who signed the amendment but, given that six of them have had allegations upheld against them by the Standards Committee in the last year, can he differentiate between how what was good enough for them is not good enough for the right hon. Member we are discussing?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The reason why this has come now is the volume of complaints that have come through and the more widespread feeling of unfairness, across all Benches, that has been brought to my attention and the attention of others. In simplistic, clichéd terms, this is the famous straw that has broken the long-suffering camel’s back.

Martin Docherty: But I do not see any Opposition Members signing the amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is the point I made earlier about the unfortunate state of affairs whereby this House does not work as a court of appeal, but, regrettably, becomes partisan, which reinforces the need to have an independent body.

Margaret Hodge: I am certainly getting up, as I know many Opposition Members are, not in a partisan way but because I care about the integrity and reputation of the House and our democracy. I have a lot of personal empathy with the individual who is subject to our debate today and the terrible personal circumstances he faces. But the matter has been considered twice, in two separate stages, in a procedure well known in this House.
The allegation is incredibly serious. It is that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) used his position of trust as a Member of Parliament and abused that for personal gain. I say to the Leader of the House that it would be absolutely terrible for our democracy if we did not take those decisions that have been unanimously agreed and endorse them in this House today. We would bring into danger the real trust in our democracy and the integrity of this House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Lady says that this has been looked at, and it has, but there has been no form of appeal and many of the aspects of it have been contested.

Florence Eshalomi: I am a member of the 2019 intake. December will mark two years since I have been here so I confess that I do not know the rules and regulations inside out. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under the rules paid advocacy has been banned from this House since 1695? Why do this Government appear to be bending the rules when it suits them?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Because the rules are not being treated in that way. The exemption exists for whistleblowing, which I will come to.

Richard Burgon: We need to widen this out. People out there believe that the Government’s attempt to rewrite the rules is dodgy, and the reason for that is because it is dodgy. It is a plan to cover up the kind of corruption we have seen throughout the covid crisis. Polls show that the population believe that the Government are corrupt, and I am afraid that they are correct. This is the most corrupt Government in modern history. Unless they change their behaviour, will they not be doing further permanent damage to our democracy and people’s belief in it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am, as always, grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he proves my point. The pieties espoused from the other side about being non-partisan are always undermined by the hon. Gentleman, who is the epitome—the very acme—of partisanship.

Steven Baker: Is the plain truth not that if the amendment passes today, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) could actually find himself in an even worse position? He could be further condemned by an appeals process, which could find against him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right about that.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend was interrupted in the course of his speech by an intervention; he was about to say something regarding the question of contested cases, which is at the heart of this issue. Report after report, including by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, has said that in such cases criteria for fairness have to be applied. As he has so adequately stated, this investigatory panel does provide for such a state of affairs but it was not applied by the Committee in this case.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a point that I am going to make in slightly more detail.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Leader of the House also accept that the report itself says, towards its conclusion, that “paid advocacy” and the exceptions are open to interpretation? That being the case, and given that there are two different interpretations here, surely the difference of interpretation should be open to some appeal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and this is one of the key things that the Committee will be asked to look at, to see whether it can clarify the interpretation on the whistleblowing exemption.
Let me return to Standing Order No. 150, which appears to provide a mechanism for the investigation of contentious cases that respects natural justice, ensures that legal counsel is appointed, is appropriate for what is a quasi-judicial process, and introduces significant checks and balances into the investigation, such as the appointment of a separate member by the Speaker to act as an assessor and the right of the Member being investigated to call witnesses and be able to examine other witnesses, rather than leaving this to the discretion of the Commissioner. In a case where so many witnesses and so many Members have made their concerns known, it is unfortunate that the Commissioner did not appoint such a panel. Indeed, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have never opted to use this mechanism, despite having had many contentious cases before them.

Michael Fabricant: Some 17 individuals have come forward saying that they wish to give oral evidence, but that was refused. Is not the point that, whether or not someone is guilty of paid advocacy, there must be justice and that justice must be seen to be done? In this case, many right-minded people would say that justice has not been seen to be done.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that the Committee we are setting up will want to consider the appearance of witnesses and whether that ought to be a fundamental right of people accused of serious cases—

Chris Bryant: If it is all right, I just want to respond directly to the point that has just been made. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has got to say before we make a judgment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman can intervene on me, but he cannot intervene on a point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me help. It is not going to be direct; I think it is direct to the point that was made to you, Leader of the House. I think we can dance around on the head of a pin, but that is not going to be helpful in a very important debate today.

Chris Bryant: I just wanted to make a simple point, which is that we reviewed and read all the witness statements. Nobody asked to make an oral witness  statement to us. It is perfectly normal in most workplaces in this country, as a retired High Court judge confirmed to me yesterday, for witness statements to be read and considered, and not necessarily for witnesses to be questioned or cross-examined. We did a perfectly normal, fair hearing for the right hon. Member for North Shropshire. We considered all the witness statements and we published them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The point is that there was this facility to set up an investigatory panel, which was not used. It would have been able to see all the witnesses that my right hon. Friend wanted.

Michael Fabricant: Is not the point on natural justice in this country about the ability to cross-examine witnesses? Is it not the case that written evidence is not the sort of evidence that can be cross-examined?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend has made a mini-speech very pithily.

Bill Wiggin: Once again, we are seeing this become partisan. We are examining the cases of the individual, but for me the key thing that is not right is that even the Commissioner is in an impossible position. Therefore, we desperately need to reform a system that puts the staff in that place.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that helps me to get back to the point about process. The 2015 Committee on Standards report on “The Standards System in the House of Commons” noted that the provisions relating to the panel had “never been invoked”, questioned why the investigatory panel was “necessary” and recommended that the provisions be “reviewed”. However, the House never chose to remove these provisions, so this was an active mechanism open to the Commissioner and the Committee, which they decided not to use. It is the Government’s belief that it is right to allow the House to revisit whether, to ensure natural justice, our procedures should be changed to give Members of Parliament the same or similar rights—including the right of examination of witnesses—as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions.

Bernard Jenkin: Before my right hon. Friend carries on, may I add that anybody who is complaining about the amendment to the motion is complaining about the procedures of this House as they exist in respect of standards cases? All standards cases come to this House for this House to dispose of as it thinks fit. That is what this House is debating now and that is perfectively legitimate. The reason why the mechanism to which my right hon. Friend referred has never been used is that, unlike what was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the commissioner would chair the panel. For it to be an independent appeals process, it should be chaired independently. It has never been used because it would be so likely to arrive at the same conclusion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is really important to remember that this House can never be and should never be a mere rubber stamp, which is not our purpose; we are a sovereign Parliament.
Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. The proposed Select Committee could consider, for example, whether the Standing Orders should be changed so that a panel was always established in contentious cases, or it could consider a new mechanism to ensure that witnesses were always called and examined.
Let me turn to whistleblowing and its relationship to the rules on lobbying, as raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). The rules related to paid advocacy have been considered many times over the years and rightly place restrictions on Members. In 2012, the House recognised the need for a whistleblowing provision to make it clear that in exceptional cases, if there were some serious wrong, a Member could approach the responsible Minister or public official, even if to do so might incidentally benefit a paying client. Concerns have been expressed about the commissioner and the Committee’s interpretation of the application of this exemption in the case of a serious public policy issue, and about whether the balance was correctly struck. We must therefore think carefully about how we protect the ability of our MPs to raise issues where they see them while ensuring that our system is robust against abuse. The balance is worth examining, and a Select Committee appointed for the purpose of reviewing our standards system would be able to give it due consideration.

Mike Amesbury: If any Member, regardless of their political affiliation, is involved in paid advocacy to the tune of £100,000 per year, I would expect the House and the Committee to come to the same conclusion—for a Member from any political party and of any affiliation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That will be a matter for the proposed Select Committee to look at. The purpose of the exemption is for serious wrong and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire pointed out, the problems with milk and with carcinogens in processed food that he pointed out saved lives. If a Member comes into information because of an outside interest, should they really hold it back from Government officials—if it would save life?

Alistair Carmichael: I am not without sympathy for the proposition that the rules require reform in this regard, but the Leader of the House knows, as we all do, that when the House requires reform, it can be done effectively only by building consensus. We build the consensus first and then bring it to the Chamber; I am afraid this Chamber is never where we build consensus. Surely it is already apparent to the Leader of the House that even if the House votes today to constitute the proposed Select Committee, the prospects of achieving consensus in that Select Committee are now as remote as they would be of achieving it in the Chamber today. I am afraid the way the Government are going about this is self-defeating.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and quite rightly points out that consensus is very hard to achieve in this Chamber—indeed, this Chamber is physically designed not to achieve it— but our Select Committee processes do, on occasions,   manage to achieve consensus from pretty stiff contention in this Chamber, so I am more optimistic about having a Committee that could come to a consensus.

Peter Kyle: rose—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to the right hon. Lady.

Peter Kyle: The Leader of the House is utterly detached from the reality of most working MPs in the House, so let me inform him that most of us do not need to get paid £100,000 to do the job we are already paid for. If we think something is endangering our residents’ lives, we do it for free.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am glad that I saved the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for next, because that point was so fatuous that it is not worth answering.

Yvette Cooper: A cross-party Committee, including lay members, has already considered this issue and come to a unanimous conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) asked the Leader of the House why the House should not just come to a conclusion on paid advocacy, which we are clear is against the rules, and the Leader of the House said that was a matter for the new Committee to consider. The old Committee, including lay members, has already considered it and come to its independent conclusion; why does the Leader of the House think the new Committee will somehow be better than the old Committee? Does he not realise that this just looks to everyone as if he simply does not like the conclusion that the old Committee came to?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Dare I say that the right hon. Lady is modelling herself on the deaf adder and, charm I never so nicely, she is not hearing what I am saying? The new Committee could come to the same conclusion, but the point at issue is that we are discussing the process, the lack of appeal and the failures in the processes as they currently exist.
Let me come to the length and continuity of investigations. Across many standards cases we have seen huge differentials among the lengths of time taken for investigations. There appears to be no consistency. For example, the case of the Chair of the Standards Committee himself, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was completed within a week using the rectification procedure, after he had failed to declare something after two years. That is contrasted by the lengthy investigation into the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, which took just over two years from the start of the inquiry to the publication of the Committee’s report.
It is equally concerning—this is an important point for those who have been speaking up for the Committee—that the current processes do not ensure continuity of attendance at the Committee, with different Members  present at the Standards Committee’s three formal meetings on the report. By the final meeting, only 50% of the membership had attended all three meetings, and four of the 11 members who attended that meeting had not attended the meeting in which the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was heard. Although we all understand the pressures on Select Committee members, that seems to be in sharp contrast to the expectations in a judicial process such as jury service, when people are meant to be there to listen to the evidence, and a good reason to look again at our processes.

Martin Docherty: Are the Government asserting, under that premise, that there will be a compulsion for Members to attend not only the proposed Committee but every other Select Committee?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The proposed Committee is very different from other Committees, but that will be a matter for the ad hoc Select Committee to consider.

Desmond Swayne: That is precisely the case when we serve on a Special Standing Committee for a private Bill: Members are required to be present because it is a quasi-judicial process.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us of the procedure in private Bill Committees.
The Committee on Standards has itself noted:
“Long investigations are undesirable…place the Member concerned under considerable strain”—
and—
“should be conducted as expeditiously as possible, so long as rigour and fairness are not compromised.”
In fact, the Committee is itself examining the length of recent investigations an adjudications, as part of its inquiry into the code of conduct, to see whether further steps can be taken—

Angela Eagle: You’ve taken a third of the time for the debate!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady chunters that I have taken a third of the debate; that is because people like her have intervened. Either I answer people’s questions or they just get a monologue. It is better to have a proper debate.

Neil Coyle: Under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, an MP can be found guilty of sexual harassment and retain the Conservative Whip; can be found guilty of bullying and keep the job of Home Secretary, overseeing law and order; can break covid rules and be Health Secretary; can break the law and be Leader of the House; and can endanger the lives of our armed forces and allies and be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister. Why should we be at all surprised by the return of cash for questions and Tory sleaze?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It seems that these admirably non-partisan socialists can talk a lot of nonsense in this House and not have to correct the record later, but we shall see.

Charles Walker: If the House does introduce an appeals process, it is very important that the appeal is heard in good time. If the appeal panel upholds the original ruling, what will happen?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If the original ruling is upheld, it will come back to this House for a vote on the proposal in the normal way. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be timely.

Stephen Timms: Can I take the Leader of the House back to what he was saying a couple of minutes ago about the whistleblowing exemption? Does he recognise the grave danger that, if the interpretation of that exemption that he appeared to be commending was accepted by the House, there would in effect be no ban at all on paid advocacy?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished and fair-minded Member of this House. It is fundamentally important that the whistleblowing exemption is an exemption and not a loophole that can be exploited for all purposes. Paid advocacy demeans the House and is not something that Members should be involved in. On the other hand, if people have come across a serious wrong in the course of something they have been paid for, I think most fair-minded Members would think it only right and proper that they should tell Ministers about it. There must be a clear dividing line, which I hope the Select Committee would be able to establish. That is at the heart of the disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire and the Committee on Standards, and that matter needs to be clearer.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the hon. Gentleman is going to speak at the end, so it may be best if he does that.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend has already intervened. Let me continue, because I am conscious of time.
The Committee noted that the commissioner has, since March 2020, routinely conducted an initiation interview with a Member concerned in investigations that involve serious allegations to assure herself that the Member is fully appraised in detail of the allegations and the process at the earliest possible stage. That postdates this case, but it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend suggested a meeting in his letter to the commissioner on 16 January 2020. These are welcome steps, and a Select Committee appointed by the House could look further at how the system might be approved.
I will now move on to the aggravating factors that the Standards Committee refers to in a number of its reports. A consistent theme has been that Members’ refusal to admit wrongdoing in contentious cases has been considered an aggravating factor leading to greater punishment, but we do not want to encourage a system in which a person has to admit fault in order to receive a reasonable response from the Standards Committee. Members who believe that they are innocent must be able to continue to assert that from the beginning to the end without that being considered an aggravating factor.
Plea bargaining is not part of our system. Expectation of self-denunciation is not where we want to get to. We do not want struggle sessions, though the Opposition may like struggle sessions, in order to receive more lenient sanctions. We saw examples of that recently where a Member was considered to have a higher degree of culpability because he did not accept the judgment of the Committee and commissioner on his correspondence with the judiciary. There was also the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), whose punishment, for the arguably innocuous and legitimate act of writing to Michel Barnier after his request for the views of MPs, was shortened and not brought to the Floor of the House on the condition that he admitted wrongdoing. This is a concerning theme in these investigations that clearly warrants greater review.
Perhaps the most critical point to emerge on concerns expressed by Members is the question of a right to appeal. I consider that right to be fundamental to the provision of justice, which is regrettably not genuinely provided by the matter coming to the Floor of this House—a regrettableness that has been reinforced by the conduct of this debate so far.
I observe that, in the House of Lords, there is an appeal process that provides that the noble lord concerned has a right of appeal to the Conduct Committee against the commissioner’s findings and any recommended sanction. Having considered any appeal, the Conduct Committee, having agreed an appropriate sanction, reports its conclusions to the House, which has the final decision on the sanction. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It proposes setting up a Select Committee to review the standards process and consider whether Members should be afforded the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of appeal, and to make recommendations for reform. The Committee will, therefore, be able to recommend setting up an appeals mechanism and recommend other changes to increase confidence. It will also be able to consider whether the case against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire should be reviewed with the benefit of any new appeals mechanism, or whether the Standards Committee report should be considered by the House. It will be a method by which we can reset a process that has lost the confidence of many Members of this House.
Let me be clear: the new Committee will not be the judge, jury and executioner in this case. It will be time-limited and established for the particular purpose of recommending improvements to the standards system for the House to consider. For example, following the Committee’s work in relation to this report, it is entirely possible that a reformed process, including any new appeal mechanism, may conclude that this initial report and sanction was entirely correct. This complex case still demands proper consideration, and the Select Committee would in no way pre-determine that.

Caroline Lucas: Can the Leader of the House explain why it is appropriate that this new Select Committee should have an in-built Government majority, while the Standards Committee with its lay members does not. If this is about trying to  improve our processes, why is he running the risk of making it look to anybody looking in from the outside that, essentially, this is like someone who has been found guilty of a crime, but instead of serving a sentence, his mates come together to try to change the judicial system? It looks really bad.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Sometimes, to do the right thing, one has to accept a degree of opprobrium, but it is more important to do the right thing to ensure that there is fairness.

Chris Elmore: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I cannot refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Elmore: Can the Leader of the House explain to the House why, for all other Select Committees, Members of this House vote for the Chair, but on this occasion he has decided to appoint a Chair and still call it a Select Committee?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not true that all the posts are elected. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for example, is not elected. The hon. Gentleman, who is on the Procedure Committee, really ought to know better and know the details of the composition of Select Committees of this House.
I shall turn briefly to a letter sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance—

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We only have an hour and a half to discuss this. This is the time that the Government gave us to discuss this matter. There is huge interest in this debate. Is there anything that you can do to encourage the Leader of the House to wind up his remarks?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the Leader of the House has just said that he is coming to his conclusion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is always a balance in this House as to whether one tries to answer as many questions as possible, which is, I think, the better way of conducting the debate.
A letter was sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance of maintaining independent and impartial investigations into misconduct. The standards system stands in contrast to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which has an appeal panel, chaired by a High Court judge. That is for the very reason that all parties referred to the scheme must have total faith in it. It has been absolutely essential in achieving positive cultural change in this House precisely because of its rigorous, judicial processes, transparency of operation and evident commitment to natural justice and the right to appeal. The House should be proud of the ICGS system, and it owes a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for its establishment. It is clear that we can learn many lessons from its operation, and I would encourage the Select Committee to look to the ICGS system, with its benefits of judicial experience, as an example of how a process of independent adjudication can be set up effectively.
In summary—I was expecting a “Hear, hear” for that, Mr Speaker, as I am coming to my conclusion—there are numerous problems with the operation of the standards system, a fact that has been highlighted by the concerns of Members across this House in this particular case and others. Given these concerns, I think that it is only right that consideration of this report be paused until our standards system can be reviewed. Therefore, I will support the amendment so that the new Committee can consider whether Members should have
“the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of representation, examination of witnesses and appeal”,
and whether this case itself should continue through any reformed system recommended by the new Committee.
Members must act when we see a situation arise that we do not believe to be compatible with the principles of natural justice. This is about the process and not the individual case, but when considering this report how can one not consider the great sorrow that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has suffered? The suicide of his wife is a greater punishment than any House of Commons Committee could inflict. As we all know:
“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes”.
It is in this way that the House should consider this case and standards more widely. The system must provide justice tempered by mercy, for mercy is essential to justice.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House appears to have spent this whole time supporting the amendment and has not actually moved the motion that he was meant to be moving.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the Leader of the House did move the motion, although I agree that it was a variation. I want the shadow Leader of the House to put the other case now. I call Thangam Debbonaire.

Thangam Debbonaire: It gives me no pleasure to be standing here responding to a standards motion, although I now feel that what I am responding to is the Leader of the House moving the amendment, rather than the motion.
I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the standards commissioner and her team, not only for their diligent work in carrying out this inquiry, but for all the other work that they do to actively promote high standards across the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who chairs the Standards Committee, and all the other Committee members who contributed to this thorough investigation.
Since 1695, there have been rules on paid advocacy. A motion passed on 2 May 1695 said that
“the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever…in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour”.
If, today, the amendment passes or the motion falls entirely, it sends the message—to paraphrase my right  hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the deputy leader of the Labour party ,who said this better than me earlier today—that when we do not like the rules, we just break the rules; and when someone breaks the rules, we just change the rules. It turns the clock back to before 1695. Such actions were not acceptable then and they are not acceptable now.

Margaret Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only logical explanation for the action by Government Ministers and Back Benchers today is not necessarily the recommendations of the report that we are considering today, but that there may be many others in line to come forward that will cause even greater embarrassment to those on the Government Benches?

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member of this House, for raising that point. It is hard to work out why this is happening. In fact, I am going to skip ahead to a later point in my speech. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House stands up in front of us every week. If he wanted a debate on changing the rules and changing the system, he has had that opportunity every single week, but I have yet to hear him mention it until today, when we are considering a live case.
In this case, the Committee concluded:
“This is an egregious case of paid advocacy”.
It said that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)
“repeatedly…used his privileged position…to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”,
and that this
“has brought the House into disrepute.”
A lot has been said in the media about the standards process over the last week, but since 1695 this House has only ever strengthened the system. The Library and the appendix to the code of conduct can provide a timeline and details for any Government Members who are interested. The introduction of a House of Commons Standards Commissioner in 1995 and the Standards Committee in 2013 were key features of strengthening the system. It has worked well and has gone a long way to restoring public trust in the House. It is vital that the integrity of the standards system is maintained. In fact, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended just this week that the system needs to be strengthened, not weakened. But no—Government Members seem to want to rip up the entire system. Our Committees, which are cross-party, carry out their inquiries independently of influence from this House and that must continue to be the case.
Under the code of conduct, all of us are expected to adhere to the ethical standards of the seven principles of public life. It seems that some Government Members need a reminder that those principles are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. That expectation is good for us all. If someone in this place falls short, there has to be a system in place to hold MPs and other public officials to account. That is our standards system. It is a standards system that our Parliament voted on and approved. Just changing the system when somebody does not like a result is not acceptable.
If the Government wish to debate the merits of the standards system, the Leader of the House can get up tomorrow and schedule time to do so. Some Government Members who have signed the amendment are Chairs of House Committees and could have initiated reviews or made proposals, but they did not. I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but today there is a motion before us about a report and its recommendations. It is absolutely in order for Back Benchers to table an amendment, but it is quite astonishing that the Government seem to have endorsed and whipped it.
Shamefully, it seems that Tory MPs have been backed by their Government to hijack this debate, which should have been about endorsing a Committee report. The Government are sending the message that paid advocacy—MPs selling their offices and position as an elected representative—is fine. I am afraid that some, including Government Members from the Dispatch Box today, are claiming that this is a process without an appeal, but the commissioner reviews cases, makes recommendations and refers them to the Standards Committee, which is cross-party, with a majority of members from the Government Benches, as well as lay members with expertise; they decide whether to approve the recommendations, and we debate and vote on them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire had access to legal representation. His character witness statements are in the report and were duly considered. As some of my colleagues have pointed out to me, if everybody who wanted to give oral evidence to a court of law was just accepted, where would that get us? Is that really what we are saying—that there should be a system whereby if I want to give evidence, I get to say what I like?
The Committee process is, in effect, a process of appeal. The Committee upheld the commissioner’s report and recommendations, and so must this House. For the public to maintain their trust in us, it is crucial that our independent standards procedure is not undermined or, worse still, systematically dismantled all together, as I fear is happening now. Is that what the Leader of the House wants his political legacy to be—undermining Parliament and our MPs even further? Does he fully understand the potential consequences of doing this?
Standards are important; they matter. The commissioner and the Committee took careful consideration of a very large amount of evidence. It took a long time to read, and I strongly suspect that some Members did not read it. The Committee recommended the sanction on the motion before us. It would be extraordinary for this House to overturn that independent, cross-party recommendation.
I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but just last month Government Members said that they could not possibly support retrospective rule change; and yet, here we are. In the middle of a case, Tory MPs—yes, I am going to state that, because it is only Tory MPs who have signed this amendment—are trying to change the rules. It is a serious case of paid advocacy against the rules that are clearly set out. The public rightly expect us to abide by the rules and to be held to account. We must vote to do so today.
We cannot have a return to the Tory sleaze of the 1990s. Members and the public will remember cash for questions and those Tory scandals of the 1990s. This Tory dilution of our standards procedures sends a  terrible message to the public and our constituents that it is one rule for certain MPs and another for everyone else. The enduring damage that that would do to Parliament’s reputation is something that none of us should be prepared to consider.

Peter Bottomley: I do not think anyone enjoys taking part in this debate. Were the Government’s motion to be considered unamended, I would vote for it. Had the second amendment been selected, I would vote for it. I will not vote for the first amendment.
I was on the Standards Committee up to 2003, when I withdrew on a point of practice, rather than principle, that the House, the Speaker and the then Labour Government had not supported Elizabeth Filkin. I am not going to change my practice now.
I am one of the people, probably like most people in this House, who has read the full report. I have read what the chief vet said about the milk allegation. I have read what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has said, and to whom I join in offering sympathy for what has happened in his life. I recognise that the involvement of Randox with Aintree and with him, and his wife’s role at Aintree, meant that he would be close to a business, and I recognise that much of what he said is uncontested by the commissioner and by the Standards Committee.
The issue is whether he would have done better, as I think was possibly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, to have said that he held one view, the commissioner and the Committee held another, that he now recognises that what they felt was reasonable, and he is sorry to have a had a view that has caused this upset and these difficulties to all of us. I still hope that were I in that situation I would have had the sense, basically, to accept that there are views other than my own and that I should not always see things with my own justification rather than in the way people outside this House, and some inside this House, would see them.
On the decision as to whether the contents of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) are correct, I do recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the 2003 recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is worth looking at. But that was 18 years ago, and if this is a serious problem, it should have been brought back for consideration by the House or by senior Members of this House during the past 18 years. I am unhappy to bring it forward now as a way of changing what should be the normal process of upholding the Standards Committee’s endorsement of the standards commissioner’s advice to the Committee.
I refer to the debate in 2010 when Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary and Sir George Young, as he then was, contributed for my party, as did I. We chose the system we are now using. If we want to consider changing it, we should do it in a proper way. I do not regard this as appropriate now.

Pete Wishart: It is a real pleasure to follow the Father of the House, who offers some realistic and sage advice about how we take forward processes and business such as this. It would be good if the Leader of the House was to listen to his very straightforward comments about what is going on today.
When I was first told about this, I thought it was some sort of joke. I thought, “They can’t possibly be serious.” I expected maybe to come to a debate that would be the usual suspects speaking on behalf of one of their pals—but not today. Today we have the full force of the Government whipping operation dragooning Conservative Members of Parliament through this House to overturn the decision of our Standards Committee and to introduce a new way of examining breaches of the rules in this House. It is an almost outrageous suggestion.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the Government’s approach: seeking to introduce mechanisms to neutralise court rulings of the Supreme Court, seeking to defy the European convention on human rights, seeking to reform the Electoral Commission, and now this. Does he, like me and I am sure many others on the Opposition Benches, agree with the litany of Giovanni Capoccia that this is a dire warning of the pillars of democracy being undermined by the Conservative and Unionist party for its own nefarious needs?

Pete Wishart: Yes, I do. I say to my hon. Friend and to this House: the public are watching this. The public are examining how we do this type of business, and, I say ever so gently to my Conservative colleagues over there, they are not liking what they are seeing. They are extremely concerned about the way that this House is going when it considers some of these issues.
What the public are observing is a shoddy attempt to turn back the clock to the worst excesses of 1990s Tory sleaze. What they see is the return of the days of brown envelopes and cash for questions—the absolute worst of sleaze and cronyism. What they see is the Conservatives trying to get one of their mates off the hook by ignoring independent due process, and rewriting the rules because they do not suit them, to close down an independent process and replace it with a Committee of this House with a Conservative majority and a Conservative Chair. Let us get rid of all independent process and just have them adjudicate on everything. Why do we not get the executive committee of the 1922 Committee to replace the whole of the judicial system across the UK? If a Conservative supporter is found guilty of any offence, why do we not get a committee set up to reconsider that verdict and have a look at it once again? That is the type of realm of possibility we are getting into with this.
I do not care if this place seems as sleaze-ridden and crony-ridden as it wants to be. In fact, it does me good if people from Scotland are watching and observing this place descending into the midden that we know it can become. It serves my purpose to see it do that. But is that what the Conservatives want to do with this House—to so debase and degrade the way that we do things that the public will start to look on this place with nothing other than utter contempt?
Let us just remind ourselves about what the Standards Committee found. It found that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) broke multiple rules when he lobbied the Government on behalf of Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods. The Committee’s report said:
“No previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests.”
It quite rightly imposed the maximum sanction available to it. What the Conservatives now want to do is to overthrow that verdict of this independent Committee and to have the matter determined by a Committee with a Conservative Chair and a Conservative majority. That is natural justice Conservative-style for you. Can I say this to you, Mr Speaker? This Committee is supposed to have a Conservative Chair, four other Conservative members, three Labour members and one Scottish National party member, but the Scottish National party will not serve on any kangaroo court designed and determined by the Conservative party in order to do away with an independent process for looking at a breach of the rules.
God know what Kathryn Stone must be making of this. She has every right and every entitlement to walk right away from all this and have nothing further to do with this House that now attempts to change the rules midway through the process. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right. We were only told a couple of weeks ago that we could not change the rules retrospectively, but here we are in the middle of considering a standards report, and that is exactly what we are doing. What a way to do our business. What a shoddy return to the days of Tory sleaze. What a way to reduce this House into the absolute shambles that it is.
Today, Tory MPs are being instructed by their Whips to vote for this. We are doing this without any scrutiny or consideration of how these rules are rewritten. If the Leader of the House wants us to look at how we approach these things in future, he should bring forward a debate, not just 90 minutes where he took up half the time, because nobody has an opportunity to get in and say anything. Do it properly. Why are we doing this when we are considering a standards report? We will not take our place on this Committee; we will have nothing to do with it. I hope that Labour Members do not take their places on it either. If the Conservatives want to be the judge and jury and the arbitrator in all this, that is up to them. Get on and do it; we will have absolutely nothing to do with this process at all.

Andrea Leadsom: I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because, in effect, he is accusing me, having worked with me over years on achieving justice for this place, of being completely disingenuous. I find that very personally disappointing.
Today is a day for serious consideration by all colleagues across this House. We must address the grave concerns about the way in which we are held to account under our own Standing Orders. My amendment is not about whether the findings of the third report of the Committee on Standards are correct or incorrect. It is not about whether Mr Owen Paterson is innocent or guilty under that report. It is not about letting anyone off, stitching  anything up, or any of the other accusations flying around the Chamber. Today’s amendment is about the process of investigations into Members and the question of whether this process must now be reviewed by a politically balanced Select Committee that will consider some exceedingly serious questions. First, there is the question of whether our investigatory process should more closely reflect the laws of natural justice, where an accused Member can expect to have their own evidence taken into account, to put forward witnesses in their defence, to be interviewed early in the process and provide their own explanation and, vitally, to access an independent appeal process.
Secondly, there is the serious question of whether Standing Orders Nos. 149, 149A and 150 are entirely fit for purpose. Those are the Standing Orders that govern the make-up of the Committee on Standards and the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I worked with Kathryn Stone when I was Leader of the House, and I know she takes her role seriously and strives to take a balanced view. However, the PCS does not have a legal background and is not required to  by orders. She works as both sole investigator and judge. The Committee on Standards can change her recommendations, should it choose, but there is no clarity on when or why that would happen. The Committee will perfectly understandably tend to prefer to uphold the system over the individual. The PCS can decide to establish an investigatory panel to help her, and the Committee can even require her to establish such a panel, but again there is no clarity in Standing Orders on when that should be done, and it has never been done to date.
As Leader of the House between 2017 and 2019, a cross-party team of Members worked flat-out under my chairmanship—I pay tribute to them again today—to establish an independent complaints and grievance scheme. I know well that the scheme has its detractors and is still disappointingly slow to dispense justice. However, that cross-party team made great efforts to ensure that it followed the laws of natural justice—specifically that, first, both alleged perpetrator and alleged victim are very clearly able to give their side of the story to an independent case manager; secondly, witnesses can be presented in support of either side; thirdly, legal support can be provided; fourthly, there is a clear hierarchy where the investigator is not also the prosecutor, and fifthly, there is a clear appeals process. Furthermore, until found guilty, the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent, and the investigation is confidential. Vitally, the whole scheme is reviewed on a regular and timetabled basis to ensure it continues to be fair and impartial.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Lady did important work on the independent complaints process, but she will recognise that, as Leader of the House, she had considerable time to propose reforms and amendments to the Committee on Standards process, should she have chosen to do so. Does she not recognise that proposing reforms now, in conjunction with this individual case—where an independent investigation and an independent cross-party Committee have come to very clear conclusions about paid advocacy—undermines the decisions and integrity of this House and any positive purpose to any reforms she might want for the future?

Andrea Leadsom: I am incredibly sympathetic to what the right hon. Lady says. In fact, I was about to come on to what many in the Chamber are asking, which is, “Why bring forward this review today, on the day we are being asked to consider one particular case?” She asks why I did not bring forward these changes when I was Leader of the House. The answer is that I was working flat-out, on a cross-party basis, doing 18-hour days—many Members would support that point—on the independent complaints and grievance scheme. Had I stayed in post longer, I absolutely would have looked at this review. I am frustrated that these two systems have not been brought into line with each other. I share her frustration. I would have strongly preferred for this review to have been kicked off on its own merits at a time when the waters would not be muddied by the inevitable party political point scoring.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend was a distinguished Leader of the House. She has set out in her amendment a view about how this system should work, which would be far more judicial and forensic. I am sure that many of us in this House on both sides find these whole processes very unedifying and somewhat embarrassing. We do not vote on our remuneration packages. In the scenario she is setting out, would it be appropriate for the House still to vote on these reports, or, given the beefed-up investigatory powers that she is setting out—looked at by the Standards Committee—should it not come for a vote of this House at all? It should be at the Standards Committee, which should then opine on what it hears.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which came up time and again during consideration of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. It was made very clear that, in a democratically elected system, ultimately, it has to be for elected colleagues to be able to make the final decision. That is an incredibly important point of principle. It was put to me that, if we ever reached a point where unelected people could remove elected people, we would put ourselves into the position of a dictatorship. But I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for reform, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, that reform can only work if it comes from all parts of the House. By bringing her amendment today, it looks like we are moving the goalposts. For that reason, I cannot support her. What might she say about that?

Andrea Leadsom: As I just said in response to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I share the concern that we are bringing this forward today. I sincerely hope that colleagues from all parts of the Chamber will be prepared to join together to review this system, which is so clearly flawed. I ask all colleagues to search their hearts carefully today. As MPs, there is no doubt we are our own harshest critics and judges. We spend so much of our lives trying to deliver justice to our constituents and fighting against unfairness wherever we see it. Today’s amendment is not about one judgment on one person. It is not about letting anyone off the hook, and it is not about rejecting the report of the Committee on Standards.

Jess Phillips: With much respect, and having worked with the right hon. Lady for many months on the ICGS process, it is only fair, in the light of that, that I raise that today two of the people who went through that process have contacted me. They are victims of sexual harassment or assault, and they say that what is happening in Parliament today is very unedifying and makes them certain that victims will find it difficult to understand that we will not just overturn things and make it very hard for anyone to come forward about anything.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We have worked together on this for many years. I must make clear to her that the amendment is not looking at the independent complaints and grievance scheme. As I have set out, that was established under a cross-party review, and it had all the laws of natural justice taken carefully into account in its establishment.
Today’s amendment is an opportunity to review the process for fairness, natural justice and impartiality in the system that oversees Members of Parliament. The review is proposed to take place within three months from today, at which time the specific case can be brought back to the House for reconsideration.

Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will just finish, because time is pressing. A colleague texted me today to say:
“Achieving change in this place is tough, but today’s amendment could lead to a standards system that is fairer for all. It is so sad that it takes a tragedy for the House to act.”
There is never a right time to act, but let us please do our best for fairness and support the amendment today.

Harriet Harman: I am regretful at rising to speak in this debate. Although we have political adversaries in the House, we are also all colleagues who work together in the same place. I have the utmost sympathy for the family tragedy that hit the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and the greatest admiration for how he then took up the campaign for the prevention of suicide to help others. In the more than 20 years that we have been in the House together, he has shown me nothing but kindness and courtesy.
It is very much because we as MPs know and understand each other that the House recognised that we needed a complaints system that involved a strong measure of independence. We all recognise that the public want, and are entitled to, the highest standards from their elected representatives, and we are proud to claim that that is the case. We all recognise that the people who elect us want us to act in their interest and in the public interest, and that they want no conflict of interest to blur the issue of our private financial interest with our role as MPs.
Trust in our democracy is all important, but it is fragile. The reputation of the House is easily damaged and, when damaged, hard to restore, as we discovered not only in the lobbying scandal, but in the expenses scandal. How we deal with this issue will reflect on the House as a whole and on each of us individually. I hope  that Members on both sides are clear that this is House business, not Government business, and therefore the vote should not be whipped, much though the Whips will try.
We made these rules on lobbying; we need to enforce them. No one foisted the process on us; we initiated it and decided it. Where there are criticisms about the rules that we decided on, changes can be proposed, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, they must have an all-party basis to go forward with integrity. That is the way we should do things.
What we must not do is make the rules and then decide to set them aside when we have misgivings about the outcome. I will oppose the amendment and support the motion, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Sir William Cash. Sir William, you have only three minutes. I am sorry about that.

Bill Cash: This case is about the whole House, not just an individual Member. It is about the manner, process and principle whereby the case was conducted by the Committee on Standards, although there has been much discussion about the role of the commissioner.
The responsibility lies with the Committee, which is ultimately a matter for the House as a whole. The amendment addresses a failure by the Committee in a serious contested case, as this was, to call for an investigatory panel as it had the right to do and should have done. Had an investigatory panel been set up, it would have brought into play the rules of natural justice, human rights and the criteria insisted on by a series of reports, including that of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
Under the Committee on Standards Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 150(5), the commissioner may hold an investigatory panel but
“if so requested by the Committee”
is obliged to hold such a panel. Then all the aspects of fairness and justice that I have mentioned, and that have been insisted on in a series of reports, would have come into play. They include establishing disputed facts, the appointment of a legal assessor and counsel, the right for a Member accused of misconduct to be heard before such a panel, the right for such a Member to call and examine witnesses, and the opportunity for the legal assessor to provide an opinion
“as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice”.
All that was denied to the Member in this case. In similar serious contested cases, it is as plain as a pikestaff that Members on both sides of the House would want to insist that such rules of fairness were brought into play for them, as would be expected in any walk of life. It would be utterly inconceivable for Parliament—it would be rightly condemned for doing so—to pass legislation denying to the courts, justice systems, statutory tribunals, professional committees or ACAS that a person accused of misconduct be granted such procedures. In a nutshell, although in courts, tribunals or professional disciplinary arrangements, any person in the land could  apply for judicial review where there had been a failure to comply with such procedures, that does not apply because of parliamentary privilege and article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
There is a further question about the role of the lay members. In this case, for a variety of reasons, including recusal and the absence of some Members of Parliament on the Committee when the report was finalised, the lay members were left in a majority, which is clearly not the way in which the Committee was intended to operate, despite past warnings.
For all those reasons, and because the House as a whole has overall jurisdiction over all Standing Orders, I believe that the amendment is essential. An investigatory panel should have been set up to ensure that. If the Committee had requested it, which it did not, the commissioner would have been obliged, under the Standing Orders, to ensure it. I therefore strongly urge that the amendment be made.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker.

You wish!

Lindsay Hoyle: I think we’ll move on. [Laughter.]

Chris Bryant: I think he got the easier job.
I have not done any radio or television interviews on this matter because, as Chair of the Committee, I am a servant of the House. I thank the Commissioner and the Committee. In particular, I wish the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) well, because he is very ill at the moment. I hope that he will be back with us soon. It is inappropriate for people to comment on absences from the Committee when they do not understand why members might be absent.
I am painfully conscious that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) lost his wife in tragic circumstances in June 2020. I wish to express my sincere condolences to him. I have known suicide in my family, as he knows, and I have performed many funerals for suicides. I know the grief, the anguish, and often the guilt that is associated. The last year must have been very distressing for him, and the Committee took those circumstances fully into account when considering his conduct.
I will address the charges, the process, the sanction and the amendment. The charges are very serious. The Member repeatedly, over a sustained period, lobbied officials and Ministers on behalf of his paying clients, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, from whom he was receiving more than £9,000 a month, as he still is. He pursued their commercial interests. When they could not get meetings with officials and Ministers, he used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure them. Providing privileged access is a valuable service.
The Member promoted what he called “Randox’s superior technology”. He wanted the Government to use Randox’s calibration system. He repeatedly used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary office for commercial meetings. That is paid lobbying. In some shape or form, it has been banned since 1695 and expressly so since  cash for questions, which brought this House into terrible disrepute in the 1990s. One Conservative Member described it to me as a “catalogue of bad behaviour”. I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who has not said to me, “He clearly broke the rules.” I think that includes the Leader of the House.
The Member says that he was raising serious wrongs, but he did not say so at the time. If they were truly serious, one might have expected him to write articles or do media interviews, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He did not. He did the one thing that he was banned from doing: lobby Ministers time and again in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients. That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice.
On the process, the Member has had a fair hearing. We had legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel throughout. As one former High Court judge said to me yesterday,
“the procedure is consistent with natural justice and similar or identical to workplaces up and down the country.”
We on the Committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence in this case without fear or favour. The Member had prior notice of the charges and the evidence against him at every stage. He had his legal advisers with him. The Committee invited him to make his appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and I hope he would confirm that we gave him every opportunity to make his case to us and that the session was conducted respectfully and fairly. I think he is nodding.
The Member has said that his witnesses should have been interviewed. Natural justice requires that witnesses be heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be heard orally or cross-examined. We did what many courts and tribunals do every day of the week: we reviewed all the witness statements, took them into consideration and published them in full.
The Member claims that the commissioner had made up her mind before she sent her memorandum. That is completely to misunderstand the process. As the commissioner has done in every other case, she started an investigation and invited the Member to meet her and/or to submit evidence. Once she had completed her investigation and, by definition, found on a preliminary basis that there had been a breach of the rules, she submitted a memorandum to him for his comments, and then to the Committee. That is when we heard his appeal, in writing and in person.
I turn to the sanction. As the Committee says in the report:
“Each of Mr Paterson’s several instances of paid advocacy would merit a suspension of several days, but the fact that he has repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, is even more concerning. He has brought the House into disrepute.”
A Conservative colleague whom I respect a great deal said to me on Monday that justice should always be tempered by mercy. I agree. But justice also demands no special favours.
These are the precedents that we considered: Patrick Mercer was suspended for six months; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 days; Jonathan Sayeed for 14 days; and George Galloway for 18 days. When Geoffrey Robinson failed to provide proper responses to the commissioner and Committee, he was suspended  for a month. This case is just as serious because it involved at least 14 instances. It was a pattern of behaviour, and the Member has said time and again over the last week that he would do the same again tomorrow. If the House were therefore to vote down or water down the sanction, or to carry the amendment, it would be endorsing his action. We would be dismantling the rule on paid advocacy, which has been around in some shape or form since 1695. I am afraid that the public would think of us as the Parliament that licensed cash for questions.
Let me turn to the amendment. I have worked with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on many things; I think she is very wrong today. It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual. That is what the amendment does. Retrospective legislation to favour or damage an individual because they are a friend or a foe is immoral and the polar opposite of the rule of law. That is why, as the Leader of the House knows, I spoke and voted with Conservative Members when we were considering a retrospective motion to subject the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) to a recall petition. The amendment should fail on that basis alone—it is the opposite of due process.
The amendment purports to set up an appeal process, but an appellate body must be independent and every single member of the body will be parti pris, by definition. They will have been whipped and taken a view today. They will almost certainly have voted. The proposed Chair, by agreeing to have his name put forward, is already not independent. I point out gently to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that it was her motion as Leader of the House on 7 January 2019 that set up the Standards Committee in its present form. At that time, she said that
“a greater element of independence was required, and that having seven lay members and seven parliamentary Members on the Standards Committee…provides the right balance—having the memory and the corporate understanding of being in this place, while at the same time ensuring that we can benefit from the experience and knowledge of independent lay members.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 128.]
The body she proposes today will have no independent members—no independence.

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not take an intervention, if the right hon. Member does not mind. She must know that this is a retrograde step. She also said—I say this strongly to all hon. Members who have said many things about the parliamentary commissioner—that
“ensuring that the PCS can operate independently…is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 127.]
The amendment will drive a coach and horses through our standards system. We will have two rival Select Committees on standards at the same time, charged with the same piece of business. As many hon. Members may know, the Standards Committee is engaged in a review of the code of conduct, which we are required to do in every Parliament, and that will include review of the operation of the system. I am absolutely certain that there are things that we could do better. I am determined to make sure that we will do things better to ensure natural justice.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not, if the hon. Member does not mind. I want to conclude my remarks; I am sorry. He has already caught Mr Speaker’s eye.
We are close to agreeing a report on how we can improve the system. I would also say that the suggested process will keep this running for yet more months. I agree with the Leader of the House: I hate investigations that take a long time, but I will point this out gently. The commissioner was, I think, right to suspend her investigation on the right hon. Member for North Shropshire after his wife’s death. It was only once his lawyers said it was okay to restart that she initiated it again. All the delays in the process have been down to his seeking further extensions of deadlines, and we have always sought to meet those. I think it is inappropriate to keep it going any further.
I also draw a distinction between an appeal on the facts, which we have heard, and an appeal on the sanction. It may be right that there should be an appeal process on the sanction. That is not the process that we have adopted with any other Member thus far, and that is why I think it is wrong to confuse changing the process with the case in hand. It is, as I said earlier, by definition wrong to change the process at the very last moment.
The Committee also says in the report:
“A Member is entitled to contest, even vigorously contest, the Commissioner’s interpretation of the rules and her findings. We do not mark down any Member for doing so.”
The aggravating factor in this case was a lack of insight into a conflict of interest, not a lack of acceptance of breach. I will say this to the Member: this could have been very different if you had come to us and said, “I am sorry. I was trying to do the right thing, but I got it wrong. I want the House to uphold the highest standards, and I accept the reprimand and the sanction. I hope my constituents will deal kindly with me.” The danger is that, if the amendment is carried, his name will become a byword for bad behaviour.
Let me end with this. I hope all Members know that I care passionately about Parliament. The vast majority of Members are here to do good. We make significant sacrifices, as our partners know. We make a big difference, often on campaigns that have no party issue in them—indeed, I hope the House will support my Acquired Brain Injury Bill on 3 December. [Interruption.] I think that was unanimous, Mr Speaker. But if the public believe that we are marking our own homework, our reputation, individually and collectively, will be tarnished. Independence is essential to protect us. A Conservative MP said to me yesterday:
“There have been times when I have been ashamed of being a Member of this House, I don’t want to go back to that.”
Of course, as Chairman of the Committee, I remain a servant of the House, but I also have to look at the public. They want the House to uphold the highest possible standards. Nobody can be above the rules. It is the public who should judge this, and I fear they will find us all wanting if the amendment is carried today. I warn colleagues, with all my heart: do not do something today that we will rue in the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say before people vote: please, take your time going into the Lobbies. I am going to extend the vote, just because of the nature of where we are at the moment.
Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from “this House” to the end and insert:
“(1) notes the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797);
(2) notes concerns expressed about potential defects in the standards system and therefore declines to consider the report at this time;
(3) and resolves:
(a) that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations by 3 February 2022 on the following matters:
(i) whether the current standards system should give Members of Parliament the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of representation, examination of witnesses and appeal;
(ii) the extent to which the procedures under Standing Order Nos 149, 149(A) and 150 should be made consistent with the principles of natural justice;
(iii) whether the case against Mr Owen Paterson should be reviewed or whether the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) should be reconsidered by the House;
(iv) and such other matters as appear to the Committee to be connected with the matters set out above,
and calls on the Government to bring forward a motion to give effect to any recommendations of the Committee within five sitting days of the publication of the Committee’s report;
(b) That the Committee consist of nine Members;
(c) That Mr John Whittingdale be Chair of the Committee and be given a casting vote in the event of a tie;
(d) That the Committee shall consist of eight other backbench members; to be nominated by parties in the proportion of four Conservative, three Labour and one SNP; nominations shall be submitted to the Committee of Selection no later than 15 November, after that date motions for nomination can be made notwithstanding any gaps in membership, and any motion made in the House on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chair or another member of the Committee shall be treated as having been made in pursuance of Standing Order No.121(2) for the purposes of Standing Order No.15(1)(c);
(e) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time, to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference.”—(Dame Andrea Leadsom.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 232.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Hon. Members:: Shame!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) needs to be calm a minute while I do the next part of the script. [Interruption.] You might find it shameful, but I think I am in charge.
Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 221.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—
(1) notes the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797);
(2) notes concerns expressed about potential defects in the standards system and therefore declines to consider the report at this time;
(3) and resolves:
(a) that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations by 3 February 2022 on the following matters:
(i) whether the current standards system should give Members of Parliament the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of representation, examination of witnesses and appeal;
(ii) the extent to which the procedures under Standing Order Nos 149, 149(A) and 150 should be made consistent with the principles of natural justice;
(iii) whether the case against Mr Owen Paterson should be reviewed or whether the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) should be reconsidered by the House;
(iv) and such other matters as appear to the Committee to be connected with the matters set out above,
and calls on the Government to bring forward a motion to give effect to any recommendations of the Committee within five sitting days of the publication of the Committee’s report;
(b) That the Committee consist of nine Members;
(c) That Mr John Whittingdale be Chair of the Committee and be given a casting vote in the event of a tie;
(d) That the Committee shall consist of eight other backbench members; to be nominated by parties in the proportion of four Conservative, three Labour and one SNP; nominations shall be submitted to the Committee of Selection no later than 15 November, after that date motions for nomination can be made notwithstanding any gaps in membership, and any motion made in the House on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chair or another member of the Committee shall be treated as having been made in pursuance of Standing Order No. 121(2) for the purposes of Standing Order No. 15(1)(c);
(e) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time, to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to let people know, I am not going to continue the debate. We have been through the debate, but I think that this might be a point of clarification, and I am happy to accept it in that light.

Chris Bryant: It is a very simple one, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay the House. Some people have asked whether the Standards Committee continues to exist. It does, and we will be meeting on Tuesday morning. I will still be its Chair.

John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that any hon. Member is truly honourable if they serve on this   new Committee. Therefore I want my constituents to know that no Member of Parliament serves on this corrupt Committee in my name.

Lindsay Hoyle: As I have said, we are not going to go through all the Members in the debate.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Second Reading

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have not selected either of the reasoned amendments.

Greg Hands: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want to start by apologising the House for the fact that I will be unable to stay for all of the debate as I am taking the train to Glasgow to be there for energy day at COP and will therefore miss the wind-ups. I have informed Mr Speaker of this, and those on the Opposition Front Bench. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), the Minister for Science, Research, and Innovation, will be here for the debate and he will respond for the Government.
Two weeks ago, on 19 October, the Government published their net zero strategy. It is our vision for a decarbonised economy in 2050 and the policies and proposals that will keep us on course to reach net zero emissions through our five-year carbon budget. It is a strategy that puts the UK on a trajectory to meet carbon budget 6, a 78% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 levels by 2035, as the Prime Ministers reminded us earlier today. These kinds of ambitious goals are vital as we host COP26. Integral to achieving carbon budget 6 is our new ambition to fully decarbonise the power sector by 2035. This will mean that the UK is entirely powered by low-carbon electricity, subject to security of supply. Of course our electricity system must be resilient and affordable, as well as low-carbon. It will predominantly be composed of wind and solar but, as last year’s energy White Paper made clear, a low-cost, reliable system means that renewables will be complemented by technologies that provide power when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. Large-scale nuclear power plants are the only proven technology available today that is deployed at scale to provide continuous, reliable and low-carbon electricity. Our electricity system needs nuclear power.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: Of course I will give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why the SNP is so resolutely opposed to continuing the strong nuclear tradition in Scotland.

Alan Brown: I will do so later, but the Minister knows nuclear waste is a key issue. On proven technology working alongside renewables, he will be well aware that pumped storage hydro can provide that. Why will the Government not give the go-ahead for Coire Glas in the highlands, which has been progressed by SSE?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman is right, and we are looking at that technology, but I stress what I just said about deployment at scale. We need something that can be deployed at scale to provide the bulk of our electricity when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.  We are always open-minded on other new technologies, but the most important thing is what can be deployed at scale. The measures in this Bill are critical for ensuring we have the option to bring forward further nuclear capacity.
Twelve of the UK’s 13 current nuclear reactors, representing approximately 85% of our nuclear capacity, are scheduled to close by 2030. Although Hinkley Point C is under construction, additional nuclear is likely to be needed in a low-cost 2050 electricity system. That is why we have committed to bring at least one further large-scale nuclear project to final investment decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals.

John Redwood: Does that not mean much more nuclear is needed if it is the preferred means of backing up wind? The new nuclear the Minister is talking about will not even replace the nuclear that is closing.

Greg Hands: I have good news for my right hon. Friend, which is that the regulated asset base model that we are introducing here can be used for further nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors and other key nuclear innovations. He will also know that, in the net zero review, we launched a £120 million fund for new nuclear innovations, which will allow us to increase our nuclear commitments and capabilities beyond the existing commitment to one new plant having its investment case in this Parliament.

Neil Parish: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), Hinkley Point C will produce between 7% and 8% of the nation’s electricity needs once both reactors are up and running. A further plant of the same size would perhaps take it to 16%, but surely we need at least 25% to 30% if we are to make sure we have enough power to keep the grid going when the wind stops and there is no sunlight.

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend makes a good case for supporting this Bill, which will allow the financing options to expand our nuclear power base. I appreciate his support for Hinkley Point, as the MP for a nearby area.

Jonathan Edwards: Is not the problem with the Government’s proposals that the new financing model, which is very favourable, goes towards only one technology? Are the British Government not therefore picking a winner from the available technology options? Does that not go against Conservative ideology?

Greg Hands: No, actually. In fact, the ability to add levies or extra payments on to bills is already in place for multiple technologies. It is not there for nuclear alone. The broad concept exists for other technologies, too.

Mark Tami: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I will make a bit more progress.
The Chancellor’s spending review backs this commitment by providing £1.7 billion to enable the investment decision, alongside a new £120 million future nuclear enabling fund to tackle barriers to deploying new nuclear technology.

Mark Tami: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I will make a bit more progress.
However, it is clear that we need a new funding model to support the financing of large-scale and advanced nuclear technologies. Under the existing mechanism to support new nuclear projects, the contracts for difference scheme, developers have to finance the construction of a nuclear project and only begin receiving revenue when the station starts generating electricity. That was the right model to use for Hinkley Point C, given that it was the first nuclear project to be built in the UK for a generation.

Mark Tami: rose—

Greg Hands: I am going to make more progress.
But the lack of alternative funding models has led to the cancellation of recent potential projects, such as Hitachi’s project at Wylfa Newydd in Wales and Toshiba’s at Moorside in Cumbria. We have digested the lessons from Hinkley Point C; it is time to provide these alternatives.

Mark Tami: rose—

Greg Hands: I am going to make some more progress.
This legislation will facilitate financing of additional nuclear capacity through implementing a regulated asset base model and additional measures to mobilise private capital into new projects. At this point, I will give way to the very patient Member from north Wales.

Mark Tami: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that since the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme, we have not had a programme of new nuclear reactors? We have had very drawn out processes for one-off plants, whether at Sizewell or Hinkley. We need to plan and have new reactors, preferably with the same build. If we look at what the French have done, we see that they can take one part of one reactor and put it in another one. We have always tinkered with reactors, rather than see this as a long-term project.

Greg Hands: I think the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the Bill and the approach being taken by the Government, because exactly this new financing model will allow us a greater diversity in our nuclear projects. It will allow us to bring in more private sector finance. I know he is a long-standing Labour MP, so perhaps he might want to reflect on Labour’s role in those lost opportunities over the years.

Mark Tami: rose—

Greg Hands: Let me finish responding to the first intervention first. I was reading the 1997 Labour manifesto the other day. We remember those days when they came in as “new Labour”, and their manifesto said:
“We see no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations.”
The right hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, so perhaps he would like to say why he was a backer of the 1997 Labour manifesto.

Mark Tami: I actually came here in 2001, but I will leave that there. I have been a long-time supporter of nuclear power. I think that the problem, on both sides of the House, is that we have energy review after energy review, we identify what all the problems are and we do absolutely nothing about it. We need a long-term plan, and I am talking about both sides of the House here. I will certainly be supporting this Bill tonight.

Greg Hands: The right hon. Gentleman said he was first elected in 2001, but my guess is that he was a supporter of the 1997 manifesto. What says supports what the Government have been doing here for some time, which has been to increase our nuclear capacity and make sure the financing models are in place to support the funds. I am surprised he voted against the Budget last week, with its £1.7 billion made available for new nuclear. Perhaps he might explain to his constituents why he was against that Budget.

Mark Jenkinson: Just to carry on the point about Labour’s involvement in this, I should point out that at his final party conference Tony Blair said:
“10 years ago I parked the issue of nuclear power. Today, I believe without it, we are going to face an energy crisis and we can’t let that happen.”
For the first time in my life, I am going to say that Tony Blair was right. The French are reaping the rewards of Messmer’s nuclear legacy. Will my right hon. Friend commit today to his Messmer-style nuclear legacy for the UK?

Greg Hands: I, too, do not often agree with Tony Blair, but it was good to see his conversion in the end, albeit that it took him 10 years. I have always been a passionate supporter of nuclear power, right since I was first elected in 2005, which was round about the time of that Labour volte-face. I was a strong supporter of Labour’s changing its view at that time; it is just such a pity that there was a lost decade before it came to that view.
Let me move on—

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: No, I am going to make some progress. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill could help to get new projects off the ground throughout Great Britain, including, potentially, the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, which is the subject of ongoing negotiations between EDF and the Government, as well as potential further projects, such as on the Wylfa site in Wales.

Jill Mortimer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this landmark Bill, which will help us to reach our net zero targets by 2050. Does he agree that it creates an incredible opportunity to replace the soon-to-be-decommissioned reactor in Hartlepool with a new advanced modular reactor, which could create the high-quality, high-temperature steam that we need for hydrogen production in Teesside?

Greg Hands: I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with her two or three weeks ago—in fact, it was my first ministerial visit under my new portfolio—and I was impressed by the commitment to hydrogen in the area and to our new approach to energy overall. The most important thing to understand about this Bill is that it enables future nuclear projects and a diversity of financing models, with greater access to private sector finance in particular, so that we are less dependent on overseas developers as we go forward. That is the most important thing to take away. I would of course be delighted to come back to Hartlepool to see what it has to offer in this policy space.

Desmond Swayne: When will I be able to get one of these little modular, Rolls-Royce reactors?

Greg Hands: I think my right hon. Friend is referring to small modular reactors, the technology behind which the Government have put their support. The ability to finance them will start to come in, and I would hope to speak further on that with my right hon. Friend.

David Morris: My understanding is that eight sites around the UK currently have planning permission for new nuclear power stations. I have two nuclear power stations in my constituency and we would welcome a third; will the Bill help in some way to speed up the planning process so that we can get investment into communities? My local nuclear power stations are supposed to be decommissioned within the next 10 years.

Greg Hands: The Bill does not change the planning process, but it does change the investment case and the ability to bring in private sector investment, particularly institutional funds, including British pension funds, that are currently put off or find it difficult. It also affects the ability to bring in private institutional investors from overseas—we have seen the difficulties at Wylfa and at Moorside. In that sense, my hon. Friend will find the Bill of great encouragement in respect of future nuclear builds in his constituency.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I am going to make a bit more progress. I have taken a lot of interventions, and the time for this debate has been a little curtailed.
The Government are introducing this Bill at a time when the cost of energy is on all our minds. We are committed to making the transition to low-carbon power affordable to households and businesses. Nuclear is part of a low-cost future electricity system and helps to reduce our exposure to volatile global gas prices. The measures in the Bill mean that we can keep nuclear in the mix at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case.
Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to designate a company to benefit from a RAB model, provided that it satisfies certain criteria. This will empower the Secretary of State to insert new conditions into the company’s electricity generation licence to permit the  company to receive a regulated revenue in respect of the design, construction, commissioning and operation of a nuclear project. A RAB model allows a company to charge consumers to construct and operate new infrastructure projects. It allows the company’s investors to share some of the project’s construction and operating risks with consumers, overseen by a strong economic regulator. That in turn significantly lowers the cost of capital, which is the main driver of a nuclear project’s cost to consumers.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Richard Fuller: rose—

Greg Hands: I will make a little more progress.
RAB is a tried and tested method that has successfully financed other large UK infrastructure projects. The introduction of a special administration regime will prioritise the plant’s opening and continuing to operate in the unlikely event of a project company’s insolvency. That will protect consumers’ investment in the plant and ensure that they realise the plant’s benefit. Members should know that this legislation is not specific to one project, as I have already said, and could be applied to nuclear projects across Great Britain.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I will make progress.
The RAB model could open up opportunities for British companies and our closest
partners to develop new projects and technologies, including the Wylfa Newydd site in Anglesey and small modular reactors, as well as the Sizewell B project.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Greg Hands: I will make more progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.
The legislation will also make technical changes to the regime of funded decommissioning programmes, removing barriers to private financing of nuclear projects in support of our nuclear energy ambitions. That section will not apply in Scotland.
Members will be pleased that this new funding model will reduce our reliance on overseas developers for financing new nuclear projects. It will substantially increase the pool of potential private investors to include British pension funds, insurers and other institutional investors.
The funding model will require consumers to pay a small amount on their bills during the construction of a nuclear project. These payments from the start of construction will avoid the build-up of interest on loans that would otherwise lead to higher costs to consumers in the future.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Greg Hands: I have given away enough.
Members will be reassured that a project starting construction in 2023 will add only a very small amount to the average dual-fuel household bill during this Parliament, and, on average, less than £1 per month during the full construction phase of the project.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Greg Hands: I will give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) because I have not given way to him yet in this debate and I miss him from the International Trade Committee.

Angus MacNeil: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We had many a good exchange at that stage, but I want to take him back a little further to when I was Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. It was pointed out in representations that were made to me that, sometimes, the Government ask the wrong questions. When they say they want nuclear, what they really need are 6 GW baseload. That might be achievable with a mix of technologies and at a cheaper strike price. Hinkley, for instance, is £92 per megawatt-hour, index linked to, I think, 2012 prices. Had that question been asked differently, not stipulating nuclear but asking for 6 GW, the price achieved might have been around £70, saving bill payers, taxpayers and everybody an awful lot. I caution the Government against going down one route and prescribing the technology—the Minister did mention technologies. Perhaps he should say what he needs, which is 6 GW baseload.

Greg Hands: As I have outlined, the Bill is about nuclear. Creating a more diverse potential finance base is exactly what it is about. It is not biased in favour of one technology vis-à-vis another, but, as a Government, we have been absolutely clear about the important, growing role that nuclear will play. On Hinkley Point C, we think that that was the right model for the decision at that time. I think the hon. Gentleman’s problem is with nuclear as a whole rather than specific problems at a nuclear plant. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe said:
“International climate objectives will not be met if nuclear power is excluded”.
I think his policy is to exclude nuclear power in its entirety.
Members will be reassured that a project starting construction in 2023 will add only a very small amount to the average dual-fuel household bill during this Parliament—on average less than £1 per month during the full construction phase of the project. I believe that these bill impacts are proportionate, given the benefits that nuclear offers our electricity system. Ultimately, nuclear power will deliver a lower-cost system for consumers compared with reliance on intermittent power sources alone. The RAB model will make new nuclear projects cheaper. Our analysis has shown that using this funding model for a nuclear project could produce a cost saving for consumers of more than £30 billion, compared with funding projects through a contract for difference.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: No, I am going to make more progress.
That saving equates to more than £10 a year for an average domestic dual-fuel bill throughout the life of a nuclear power station, which can operate for 60 years.
The UK has a pioneering history in nuclear energy. We were the first country in the world to set up a civil nuclear programme, back in 1956. There are proud communities—I see many Members who represent them here today—who have been working in the industry for more than 60 years. Creating new nuclear projects will support this important sector and help to level up the UK. The civil nuclear sector is already a major provider of high-value, high-skilled jobs across the entire country. It employs approximately 60,000 people, with nearly 90% of those jobs based outside of London and the south-east. New nuclear projects will be important sources of economic opportunity for the whole country. Hinkley Point C has already created well over 10,000 job opportunities. Future nuclear projects bring with them significant opportunities for training the future nuclear workforce through apprenticeships and training schemes to increase skills.
This legislation will vary in application across the UK. The Government are undertaking close joint work with other stakeholders on the potential options for nuclear at the Wylfa site. The RAB model could play a key role in funding any future project there.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: No; I am going to have to finish.
Members will know that the Scottish Government have a different position with regard to new nuclear projects. To be clear: this Bill will not alter the current approval process for new nuclear, nor the responsibilities of the devolved Governments. Nothing in this Bill will change the fact that Scottish Ministers are responsible for approving applications for large-scale onshore electricity-generating stations in Scotland. The steps taken in this Bill will mean that Scottish consumers will benefit from a cheaper, more resilient and lower-carbon electricity system, so it is right that Scottish consumers should contribute towards the construction of new projects.
Northern Ireland is part of the single electricity market with the Republic of Ireland. As such, energy users in Northern Ireland will not pay towards nuclear projects financed through the RAB.
Taken as a whole, the Bill will ensure that consumers across Great Britain will benefit from a cheaper, more resilient and lower-carbon electricity system that is funded in a fair and affordable way. I hope that Members will agree that this is an important and timely piece of legislation. Recent increases in gas prices have demonstrated the key role that reliable low-carbon power through nuclear has to play in our transition to net zero.
The Bill is a unique opportunity to deliver a trinity of benefits, as it will: help us to create a resilient low-carbon energy system; deliver value for money for consumers; and deliver and create thousands of well-paid jobs across the country. I hope that Members will take the next step towards net zero and levelling up the whole UK. I commend the Bill to the House.

Alan Whitehead: Labour believes that new nuclear has an important supporting role to play in the energy mix, alongside the decisive shift to renewables that we need to deliver the climate transition and secure our energy security. As set out by the Climate Change Committee, we need all the low-carbon power sources at our disposal to deliver the rapid and fair transition that is required.
I am sorry that the Minister, in presenting the Bill, has chosen the partisan knockabout route, rather than giving it the serious consideration that it deserves. If we want to go down that path, we can reflect on the decade of dither and delay on the Government’s part, with mixed messages from the Conservative Government on new nuclear. The result is that, after 10 years, we have one half-finished nuclear plant, which is funded by a mechanism that, as the Minister himself accepts, is quite disastrous in terms of future prices. The record of this Conservative Government on new nuclear is frankly very poor. At last we have a Bill that might rectify some of that poor performance over the last 10 years. We need to support the need to finance new nuclear. We will scrutinise this Bill to guarantee fairness for bill payers, including protecting consumers against any potential cost overruns, protecting the poorest households, and scrutinising the balance between public spending and bill payers.
It is welcome that at long last we are coming to the key issue in nuclear power, which is how we build the power stations that we seek to place in the mix of low-carbon energy for the future. We know how not to do it, as I mentioned. We have already seen from the passage of building Hinkley C, and the disappearance of many nuclear projects and programmes, that the model that the Government have long stood for—that power stations should be built entirely by the private sector, and that private-sector security can be bought by price mechanisms that grossly inflate the cost of energy to the customer in the end—is highly flawed.
We are facing a last-chance saloon for new nuclear build that requires us to throw away those principles and start again, because most of the programme of new nuclear power stations that the Government have been envisaging over the past 10 years has been washed away. As late as 2018, there were possibly three consortia actively pursuing an interest in building five new nuclear power stations. These have progressively fallen by the wayside. Consortia have fallen apart, companies with an interest in financing projects have pulled out, and we are now left with one proto-consortium—effectively just EDF—building Hinkley C and with active plans to build a new power station at Sizewell. It is not only an active interest. Sizewell is designed to be effectively a clone of the plant that is currently being built so that it can start to build as Hinkley completes its construction phase and the workforce currently undertaking construction at Hinkley can transfer to the building of its clone at Sizewell.
We ought to add two other factors that will have a substantial bearing on how we proceed with building plants—or in this instance, a plant, because that is all we have under consideration right now. First, the consortium proposing to build Sizewell is not exactly champing at the bit to finance it. EDF has effectively mortgaged   itself to the hilt in financing 65% of Hinkley C and has stated unequivocally that it is not about to do the same with Sizewell C. Secondly, we still have the arrangement in place concluded by the then Chancellor George Osborne to arrange a fast track into the heart of our nuclear programme for the China National Nuclear Corporation via a Secretary of State’s investment agreement to help fund Hinkley C power station to the tune of 35% of the upfront capital; 20% of the second in the EDF consortium’s programme, Sizewell C; and the big prize for the Chinese—control of the financing, build and running of a third nuclear power station at Bradwell in Essex, which is now unlikely, to the point of impossible, to happen.
It is likely that the Chinese will not be able to get their hands on a real nuclear power station all of their own and they will not be investing into 20% of Sizewell—indeed, the Government seem to have set aside £1.7 billion in the Budget to buy out their interest in Sizewell C. Labour has long warned that the Government are playing a dangerous game when they outsource the funding of critical national infrastructure to foreign Governments. We are now seeing the results of a decade of Conservative Governments doing exactly that, and mostly failing to get anywhere. There we have it in terms of the UK’s nuclear programme for the foreseeable future—only one plant in prospect for a start before the late 2020s.

John Redwood: The shadow Minister is very thoughtful on these matters. How much standby capacity does he think we need to back up the wind and solar that will be the majority of our generation in due course?

Alan Whitehead: Interestingly, the Climate Change Committee, which has looked into this matter in great depth, considers that in the overall long-term future make-up of our energy mix, about 8 to 10 gigawatts of standby power—therm power—is likely to be required in the shape of new or existing nuclear power stations. That is about the size of the difference with an overwhelmingly renewable but variable economy, with elements of firm power backing it up.
I have mentioned that one plant only that would be included in the suggested 8 GW to 10 GW is in prospect for a start before the late 2020s, because every other proposal has fallen away. However, it is not financed and is probably not financeable by private capital. It is only part financeable by a state financer, with which we do not now want to do business. Let us be clear before we go any further: this Bill is about finding a formula to fund and build Sizewell C power station. Whatever its generic pretensions, that is the issue we should be concentrating on. Even so, getting that plant going would cover most of what the Climate Change Committee considers is the presence in the mix needed.

Daniel Poulter: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from discussing the financing for Sizewell C, does he agree that it is important, when we are talking about financing, that the financing is not just in place for the build of the power station itself, but for the necessary infrastructure and mitigation measures for the local communities in the area, who will be suffering from construction traffic and the like for potentially a 12-year period?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the build cost and financing of a nuclear power station has to include not just the obvious things that we think are associated with a nuclear power station, but all the other infrastructure around that nuclear power station and contributions to decommissioning costs. That is what we are talking about in terms of an overall financing package, and that is why a financing package has to last over the whole life, effectively, of that nuclear power station. I do not intend to move on from the financing of Sizewell C, because that is essentially what this Bill is all about. It is about all those things that the hon. Gentleman mentions, so far as that particular project is concerned.
This plant, if it goes forward—we hope it will go forward with something like this kind of financing—would cover a substantial part of what the Climate Change Committee considers necessary in the mix of low-carbon energy to drive power towards net zero by 2050. I have mentioned that it thinks about 8 GW to 10 GW of new nuclear power would be needed to complement a predominantly renewable power line-up so that firm power considerations are met, without being in such numbers that it puts the development of renewables into jeopardy. That 8 GW to 10 GW includes new nuclear power, but also the one existing power station that will probably last beyond the 2030s in Sizewell B.
Hinkley and Sizewell C together therefore would go a long way towards meeting that assessment by the end of the decade, with two 3.2 GW power stations with reactors in each, and the remaining Sizewell B power station continuing in action. It is not surprising then that we are talking about nuclear financing, which is pretty much all the Bill covers. Exam question: how do we finance an unfinanceable nuclear plant when we know we have got to do it because there is no other option? Even if we did decide to repeat the frankly disastrous device of providing a CfD for the plant at Hinkley, which is likely to produce power at twice market cost, it still would not work, because that does not solve the problem of getting investors into the plant for the lengthy period before production starts. There are ways in which nuclear finance can be sorted out.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very considered manner in which he is presenting his case. Is there anything in his mind that would stop the UK Government using this new financing model for other technologies, such as the tidal lagoon in Swansea, or is it blatantly unfair that one technology has a very favourable financing scheme, while another technology that could provide many of the solutions that he seeks is stuck on contracts for difference?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Member mentions tidal power. Of course, a regulated asset base system can be used for any sort of major infrastructure project—and indeed has been already, as I will come to. I do not see the discussion on that system as being about just nuclear power, but a method of funding a large infrastructure project that has certain requirements that must be met by continuous funding throughout its operation. He  is right that infrastructure projects other than nuclear  in the energy sector could and should be funded by  that system.
The National Audit Office discussed those options when it reviewed the decision making and value for money that the CfD process for Hinkley entailed. The route adopted by the Government, after much internal wrangling and delay, is a regulated asset-based model that is essentially constructed along the lines that it has been used for already in capital projects such as Heathrow terminal 5 and the Thames Tideway project. That is, the whole project is part-funded by the proceeds of a levy on bills. The levy varies in size during different phases of the project and, in the latter phases of production, lowers or even goes negative if the project’s income exceeds the ceiling of allowable costs under RAB.
There are substantial advantages to the RAB model for making the project investable. It provides returns for investors as the project proceeds rather than at the end of it, as does the CfD model, which allows investment to be brought into the frame for the project from sources that might otherwise baulk at the timetable between investment and return. It also reduces the hurdle rate for investment in the project, thereby in theory substantially reducing the overall cost of financing the project and likely resulting in cheaper prices for the energy produced by the plant.
There are also substantial risks with RAB that need to be managed. It places the cost and risk of financing the project on the shoulders of customers, in this instance electricity bill payers, which adds to bill costs through a levy on their bills before anything has materialised. In the event of the plant not being completed, it lumbers them with bill costs without the benefit of the plant for which they have paid producing relatively cheaper electricity.
RAB also adds to the burden of bills unpredictably if the project overruns on cost or time—both of which, as we know, nuclear plant development is rather prone to. The extension of the construction period for a project, when the highest effect is felt on bills, lengthens that higher take period. An increase in cost may also cause revisions to be made to allowable costs ceilings, and hence cause heavier costs on bills.
We are in somewhat uncharted waters with a project such as Sizewell C because of its size, complexity, timescale and investment costs compared with the more modest sums and shorter timescales involved in existing RAB projects. Nuclear power stations elsewhere in the world have been funded along RAB lines, but have simply not been completed, which has left consumers with a huge bill and no benefit.
In short, we need to go into this kind of arrangement with a clear eye about the advantages and risks of a RAB model for nuclear. As far as we can, we should attempt to mitigate the risks and play up the advantages. It is workable, but only if the Government have a serious plan.
The Government have sought to alleviate at least some of the disadvantages by introducing to the Bill a special administrative regime for the project in the event of a failure of the company involved during construction. We will look carefully at those provisions, but they seem to be a useful commitment to ensure the robustness of the overall project, even if its prime developer fails to deliver. We also accept that provisions in the Bill on  who may be involved in legacy and decommissioning costs will help to clarify the risks for security trustees and secured creditors.
There is much to agree with in the Bill, given the evident need to secure a mechanism that enables Sizewell C to be developed and come into production at a reasonably early date. There are measures to lower the overall cost of the project so it is investable and less price inefficient than its immediate predecessor, and to ensure that the project stays on track and delivers at the end of it. However, there are still many questions to be answered, particularly on the robustness of the RAB model under circumstances where the inevitable “optimism bias” of project costings—that candid acknowledgement comes from the Bill’s impact assessment—proves to be disadvantageous and costly to consumers who, after all, are supposed to be paying up for a benefit later on. It is important that we look at such matters carefully, with a clear eye on consumer protection, and do not just assume that the mechanism will milk customers for whatever it takes to produce an outcome in the end.
We need much greater clarity about the Government’s intentions on the difficult situation concerning Chinese investment in Sizewell. That may not be central to the Bill and the RAB model, but it is indirectly affected. The project’s overall shape will be affected by whether the Government take over the Chinese share, offer it to other investors or even calculate that RAB is a sufficiently powerful tool to enable investors easily to come in and scoop it up once the Secretary of State’s investment agreement provisions are untangled. We need to know in the Bill’s early stages what the Government will do about that and through what mechanisms.
As the Bill progresses, the Government can expect Labour’s overall support but also a proper, critical eye on aspects of the mechanisms they are adopting and a particular emphasis on protecting the people, who will either stand to benefit from a reliable power station producing needed energy at reasonable cost if it goes right or suffer grievously if it goes wrong. In other words, the customer must be first in our minds in taking such decisions, and we will stand up for them as the Bill progresses.

Chris Skidmore: I welcome the Government’s action to introduce the regulated asset base funding model for the financing of new nuclear power plants. As a former energy Minister, and indeed a former science Minister twice, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to see at first hand the brilliant services that our nuclear energy industry provides, despite the many compounding hardships that it faces.
Nuclear power currently provides just under 20% of the UK’s energy needs, but almost half that capacity will be retired and lost by 2025. For the UK to achieve its net zero obligations and beyond, expanding our nuclear energy fleet will be paramount as it provides emission-free energy without the need for the wind to be blowing or the sun to be shining. The case for nuclear energy as a clean source of power should be evident. It may have done more for decarbonisation and reducing carbon emissions in the past 70 years than any other industrial sector.

Deidre Brock: The right hon. Member speaks of the baseload and the constant flow of energy from nuclear. Does he support the tidal energy efforts being made in Scotland? Would he support far more investment in that?

Chris Skidmore: I believe that we do not have a choice. We must look at every form of renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen to reach net zero. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. Equally, in looking at how to decarbonise, there are no good and bad actors; the most important thing is outcomes. We have a target set for 2050 but cannot ignore that we wish to reduce our carbon emissions now. I therefore welcome any technology that can achieve that sooner rather than later.

Bob Stewart: My right hon. Friend knows a lot about these things. What percentage of our energy does he estimate will be produced by nuclear power stations by 2050?

Chris Skidmore: That depends on the potential for innovation for the future. We have an energy crunch coming down the line with perhaps just a single nuclear plant open by 2030 and, at the same time, we will move from existing nuclear fission reactors through to small modular nuclear reactors, advanced modular nuclear reactors and, ultimately, fusion.
As science Minister, I assigned Government investment for the spherical tokamak for energy production units. We need certainty and a clear strategy for where the nuclear pathway is going beyond the existing reactors and to front-load that investment now. I will come to why the RAB model is so important as it allows that front-loading.
As I mentioned, nuclear power has resulted in an annual saving of 22.7 million tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of taking one in three cars off the road. The Government’s proposal to adopt the regulated asset base funding model for nuclear power is bold and ambitious, but it is also needed. The beauty of the funding model is that it inherently encourages a wider range of private investment in new nuclear projects, reducing the UK’s reliance on overseas funding.
As it stands, developers are forced to provide the finances for construction up front and begin receiving revenue only when the station starts generating electricity. Even in the best of times for energy markets, which we certainly are not in now, that lack of certainty diminishes how investable nuclear power projects are. As we have seen, sadly, with the nuclear projects at Moorside and Wylfa, our current funding model is simply not fit for purpose; 5.8 GW of nuclear energy, just over half our current supply of nuclear power, was lost directly because funding could not be secured. Those locations have both been described as highly desirable sites for new nuclear power plants, but even after the Government offered to take the equity, provide all the debt finance and back a revenue-stabilising mechanism, private investors still had to walk away.

Jonathan Edwards: I do not question the hon. Gentleman’s expertise or knowledge on this issue, but perhaps he can help me out. From the Minister’s letter, and from what the hon. Gentleman himself has said  during the debate, we know that 12 of the UK’s 13 current nuclear reactors are scheduled to close by 2030. The main argument for large nuclear is the baseload protection it gives that other technologies cannot provide, but it seems to me that it is highly unlikely, even with this new financing model, that a large new nuclear plant will be built before 2030. The question that arises from that for me—I admit that I am not an expert—is, how will that baseload be covered while we are waiting for the new large nuclear plants to be built?

Chris Skidmore: That is a very important question. It is not just 2030 that I am concerned about, but 2025. Nuclear currently accounts for 18% of electricity generation. The current closure rate of plants means that by 2025, nuclear will go from 18% down to 10%, so we will lose 8% of energy supply in the next three years alone. We will not be able to cover that gap; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are behind the curve here, which is why the Bill is vital. No one should vote against it tonight, because to do so would simply be to kick the can further down the road.
Nuclear also provides a fantastic opportunity to level up. Think of the jobs that it can provide: no one who lives near an area in which there is a nuclear power plant is against nuclear. Hinkley C in Somerset, relatively near my constituency, provides 30,000 jobs, of which 70% are local. It offers enormous potential for creating a sustainable pipeline of skill and talent for the future.
On the RAB funding model, others have asked during the debate, “What about other technologies?” The RAB model has also been established and received strong support from investors in other large infrastructure projects. Indeed, RAB-based funding has provided the funding mechanism for numerous financings of offshore wind transmission cables and infrastructure, as well as Legal & General’s financing for Mutual Energy’s Gas to the West gas network expansion project in Northern Ireland.
Yet the real advantages of this new funding system will come in relation to emerging innovative nuclear energy technologies. As anyone who is interested in reaching net zero will be aware, plans to develop third-generation nuclear reactors are well under way, with British companies such as Rolls-Royce leading the way. Some of those innovations—I have mentioned small modular nuclear reactors—have been designed to be able to be mass-manufactured at one site, powered by an SMR nuclear power plant, and then shipped domestically or internationally, massively reducing the cost. That brilliant technology will have the added benefit, I believe, of helping to power hydrogen electrolysers, which are highly more efficient if they are given a supply of heat. In turn, those will be able to decarbonise sectors that are the most difficult to decarbonise—the hard-to-abate groups that energy cannot touch, which need liquid fuel. The potential for nuclear heat and energy to generate hydrogen I think has the potential, in turn, to generate a clean energy revolution.
Those exciting technologies look to radically shake up the international energy supply system, but it is only through an adequate and appropriate funding model that we can take full advantage of their possibilities. As we have seen with the recent rise in global energy prices, energy security must be at the forefront of all our minds when debating policy. One of the best ways to avoid the  situations that the world currently faces is by having a diversified energy supply, nuclear included. Additionally, it is only through the correct development and deployment of innovative technologies that we can both secure our energy supply system and achieve our net zero obligations. Net zero by 2050 is the ultimate mission for our generation and one that we must achieve as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible. The RAB funding mechanism provides a clear path for nuclear to play its part in that mission.

Alan Brown: Not for the first time I think I am going to express a minority view in the Chamber, but I am sure everyone will listen carefully and, once I present my arguments, change their minds and agree with our point of view.
The real debate is whether we need new nuclear or not. I intend to spell out why we do not need new nuclear and, therefore, why we do not need the Bill. Before doing so, I want to highlight the UK Government market failures that have led to the Government scrambling to bring forward the Bill.
We know that Hinkley Point C is currently under construction, but it is under construction as the most expensive power station in the world. There are several reasons for that and how it came about. First, successive Governments seem to have developed a groupthink, following lobbying from the nuclear industry, that somehow nuclear is a prerequisite for our future. Then came the rationale that building a suite of new large-scale nuclear power stations would lead to competition and cheaper costs. However, that philosophy was flawed in that there were not enough competitors to start with and then a piecemeal approach was taken by nominally awarding sites to different preferred bidders. For Hinkley Point C, that meant EDF was the only game in town, so there was no competition when negotiating the contract. EDF had already been beset with problems with its EPR prototypes in Finland and France, so it had to be more cautious in its pricing. It is little wonder then that the UK Government ended up with such a bad deal. They have since tried to tell us that the eye-watering strike rate of £92.20 per megawatt hour for a 35-year contract, while the cost of offshore wind dropped to £40 per megawatt hour for just a 15-year concession, meant that the nuclear deal was a good deal.
In a letter last week, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), was effectively saying, “By the way, the Hinkley Point C deal was actually rubbish and poor value for taxpayers, so now we have an alternative funding model and we’re bringing that forward.” Interestingly, it was stated in the letter that the new funding model could potentially save the taxpayer £30 billion to £80 billion. How much money do the Government estimate has been wasted on Hinkley? How many billions of pounds are the Government willing to commit bill payers to if they say they can save up to £80 billion? Logic says that hundreds of billions of pounds would have to be spent to be able to argue that there could be a saving of £80 billion. I will happily give way to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for  Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), if he can tell me how much money that £80 billion saving is estimated on? The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham would not give way, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman can tell me how much the Government estimate—[Interruption.] I take it that he will not give us a figure. The Minister will not come forward and give a figure. That does not add confidence. The Government are saying the saving could be between £30 billion and £80 billion. That is a huge range and that does not give confidence to the estimating proposals either.

George Freeman: Just to correct the record, it does not at all mean I am not going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. It means that I will do it in the usual way, when I wind up at the end of the debate.

Alan Brown: I was so hopeful that I was getting an answer there on the hundreds of billions of pounds that are being committed.
Returning to Hinkley Point C, we hear how advanced the project is and how well it is going, but the reality in terms of cost is that it is £4.5 billion over the initial estimates, which is 25% over budget. On progress, the commissioning date for unit one has now been put back to June 2026, instead of the anticipated 2025, but they also admit there is a programme risk of up to 15 months on top of that. That means that it could be September 2027 before unit 1 of Hinkley is operational and unit 2 will then follow a further year behind. So it is realistic to say that Hinkley Point C will not be fully operational until 2027-28, which is 10 years after we were initially told that Hinkley Point C was required to stop the lights going out. Given that the lights have not gone out, that undermines the original case for Hinkley.
We have to bear in mind that the EPR system has still not been shown to be successful. Flamanville in France is expected to start generating to the grid in 2024, 12 years late. Finland’s project has been delayed yet again, until next year, and it is 13 years late. Both have been crippled with spiralling cost increases.

Deidre Brock: Further to those costs, we know that the permanent safe disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants has not yet been achieved by any country. A 2018 study from the department of geology at the University of Kansas recently suggested that nuclear waste disposal would be two and a half to four times more expensive than has been estimated. Those costs will be passed on to those who come after us. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these possibilities have been fully taken into account in the financing model?

Alan Brown: It will be no surprise to hear that I have no confidence that the true costs of nuclear waste disposal are actually included. We hear that this is rolled up in the strike rate for Hinkley, but if something happens and EDF goes out of operation, who will pick up the additional costs? It will clearly be the bill payers or the taxpayer. We hear about the fact that nuclear is supposed to be clean energy, but how can it be classed as clean energy when we are burying radioactive waste and having to store it for up to 1,000 years? That, to me, does not mean clean energy.
Taishan in China was held up as an exemplar EPR project when it was commissioned, but it has been offline since June this year due to safety concerns and rod damage. It is clear that the design and construction of EPR nuclear stations has still not been bottomed out properly. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), said, a reliance on French state-owned EDF and the Chinese state company China General Nuclear kind of undermines the argument about having sovereign energy security. It makes no sense.
Despite the cost and programme issues at Hinkley, we are told that Sizewell C will somehow be different. There will be cost savings from learning on Hinkley. The design will be replicated, saving more money, but the reality is that the site at Sizewell C is bound to have different ground conditions, different environmental considerations and different logistics and site constraints, which affects methods of working, and that means that we cannot build an exact duplicate station the same way.
Even if savings are realised on Sizewell C compared with Hinkley, what does that mean cost-wise? If Sizewell C saves 25% compared with Hinkley, that is still a capital cost outlay of £18 billion. Surely there are better ways to spend £18 billion. We heard from the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) about the number of jobs being created. If I was given £18 billion to £20 billion, I am sure that I could create 30,000 jobs —by the way, that is £730,000-odd a job in capital costs alone. That is not a good return.
On costs, we are told that a new deal signed under the proposed new funding model in the Bill will cost consumers only £1 a month during construction, but if we look at a 10-year construction period for Sizewell C, we see that that means that bill payers in 28 million households will pay £3.4 billion before it is operational. That is a further £3.4 billion in expenditure when that money could be better invested elsewhere.
We still do not know with this Bill what the long-term pay-back options will be. Will there be a further agreement on the strike rate or a minimum floor price on the sale of energy? What length of contract will bill payers be tied into once a RAB model for an agreement is signed off?
What else could we do with that amount of money? We could upgrade all homes to energy performance certificate band C. We could have wave and tidal generation. The UK Government are willing to introduce the Bill and commit hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear—the Budget has £1.7 billion just for developing nuclear to a negotiation stage—but they will not even ringfence £24 million for wave and tidal in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. The disparity is clear.
It is time the Government took their blinkers off. It will be a real disgrace if they do not provide a pathway for wave and tidal projects to scale up. Scotland is currently leading the world on the issue; the O2 tidal generator is operational and grid-connected in Orkney. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the request to ringfence a small amount of money in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction.

Mark Jenkinson: I am a huge supporter of tidal energy, but is it not the case that nuclear, given its energy density, is the most environmentally friendly and low-carbon technology that we have, while tidal has the  potential to significantly damage marine ecosystems? I am a big supporter of tidal energy, but we have to be really careful about where we deploy such things. We have a ready-built, proven technology here—the most environmentally friendly and low-carbon technology that there is.

Alan Brown: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about nuclear being clean—oh, wait, apart from the radioactive waste that we still do not know what to do with. We will ignore that point, but he has a valid point about the need for clear environmental considerations with respect to where we site any marine project. That should be part of a robust, up-front planning process, working with the likes of Marine Scotland. There are regulatory bodies that have oversight of these projects, so it is important that they be involved in the planning process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is still a huge future for wave and tidal.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman highlights the value of marine energy in Scotland and elsewhere; he and I are absolutely on the same page on that. Does he agree that one thing it would be very helpful for the Minister to take away is the need to clarify the precise size of the pot that will be available specifically for marine energy in the next contracts for difference auction round, CFD AR4? There is a danger that unless there is a specific pot, the marine energy providers will be rather crowded out by other forms of renewable energy.

Alan Brown: I completely agree. I was happy to co-sign the cross-party letter from the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I fully support. I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is a matter that we agree on across parties.
Looking at other technologies that we should be spending money on, I compliment the UK Government on seeing the opportunities that floating offshore wind can bring, but let us start deploying it much more quickly and investing more money, because that is where the real future is. Clearly, the further out to sea the turbines are, the greater the reliability of wind and subsequent generation.
There needs to be much greater investment in carbon capture and storage. The Government need to reverse their disgraceful decision not to have a Scottish cluster as part of their track 1 CCS projects. A Scottish cluster would also deliver hydrogen production, which is vital on the pathway to net zero.
We heard earlier, as we always do, the argument that nuclear is required for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but as I have tried to point out to the Minister, there is an existing technology that can address that issue: pumped storage hydro, a renewable energy source that utilises surplus grid energy to fill the reservoirs and can then dispatch electricity when required. Pumped storage hydro is the perfect foil for intermittent renewables, rather than big, inflexible nuclear power stations that invariably pump energy to the grid when it is not required. An Imperial College report suggests that there could be system savings of £700 million a year from using pumped storage hydro technology instead of nuclear.
SSE has all the necessary permissions in place, right now, to progress a new pumped storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas in the Highlands. It is progressing the design at its financial risk, and all that it needs is agreement with the Government and a minimum floor price for electricity—not a strike rate and not direct funding, just a minimum guarantee on the sale price of electricity. Then the development can reach the construction stage, and can be commissioned in the same timeframe as Hinkley. I ask the Government to reconsider, and to get round the table with SSE and other developers.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. I am a big supporter of pumped hydro, which is great for storage, but we cannot neglect the fact that we require a surplus of electricity to pump the water in the first place, up to the point of that storage. It is great to be in control of when we release the water and use the energy, but we have to think about how we get it up there in the first place.

Alan Brown: Absolutely. That is my point. This is about utilising spare energy and then filling the reservoirs. That is much more productive than, with nuclear, putting additional electricity into the grid and then making constraint payments to wind farm developers to turn the turbines off. Those turbines could be used to much greater effect for the likes of pumped storage hydro, or generating green hydrogen.
It is clear that there are alternatives to nuclear. The Government have rightly pointed out that the existing nuclear fleet is coming to an end, but they have wrongly concluded that that means we need new nuclear. Dungeness went offline earlier this year, seven years early, because of safety concerns. Hunterston B is about to go offline, and Hinkley Point B will close next summer. Hartlepool and Heysham will follow in 2024. That means that Hinkley Point C will not even replace the lost capacity, and by 2024, 5.3 GW of nuclear capacity will have been lost to the grid.
If the grid can operate successfully without that 5.3 GW of nuclear for three or four years until Hinkley’s 3.3 GW comes on line, that in itself confirms that new nuclear power is not required. In all likelihood, Torness and Heysham 2 will not last until 2030, so all but one of the existing stations will be offline before Hinkley comes online. By not replacing the existing nuclear fleet as it comes to the end of its life, the UK Government are themselves proving that we do not need a nuclear baseload, because the grid can operate without it, unless an energy security crisis arises when all the other stations go offline. The Minister can address that later if he wants.
Although here in the Chamber it is just me saying that we do not need new nuclear, plenty of experts agree. Back in 2015, the then chief executive officer of National Grid, Steve Holliday, said:
“The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”.
In the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider, who was the lead author of the report, said that nuclear power
“meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
A recent study by Good Energy and the Energy System Catapult demonstrated that carbon emissions from the power sector could be eliminated as early as 2030 without the need to develop new nuclear power. Sarah Darby, associate professor of the energy programme at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, has said:
“Nuclear stations are particularly unsuited to meeting peak demand: they are so expensive to build that it makes no sense to use them only for short periods of time. Even if it were easy to adjust their output flexibly—which it isn’t—there doesn’t appear to be any business case for nuclear, whether large, small, ‘advanced’ or otherwise.”
It is clear that there is not a case for new nuclear—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out earlier, we have yet to address the nuclear waste issue. It will cost £132 billion to deal with the existing nuclear waste legacy. Why do we want to create another waste legacy for future generations to deal with?
So we do not need nuclear, and we do not need this Bill. Even if we consider what it aims to achieve, the fact remains that there is market failure, given that Hitachi has walked away from Wylfa and Oldbury and Toshiba has walked away from Moorside. So there is no competition to drive down cost, and EDF and China General Nuclear are still the only show in town. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, while the RAB model may might bring down costs, what protections are there in the event of project overruns?
Clause 2 puts all the powers of negotiation and contract award into the hands of the Secretary of State, and allows the Secretary of State to determine what is value for money. We all know how good the Government are at direct negotiations, so how can they guarantee value for money in a transparent manner?
As I touched on earlier, we have been told for five years that Hinkley is good value for money, but now the Government have come back to the House to say that actually that is not the case and they have a new plan for how to deliver nuclear. I therefore cannot possibly support this Bill, especially as the electorate of Scotland have consistently voted to elect a Government on a “no new nuclear” manifesto. Why should Scottish bill payers be forced to pay for nuclear energy that they do not want or require? This is another democratic deficit for Scotland, especially when so much of our renewable energy is not being supported at the moment and we are stuck with the highest grid charges in Europe. It really is time that Scotland had control of its own energy decisions, but in the meantime I will be proud and pleased to vote against this Bill.

David Morris: It is an honour to be called to speak in the debate and  to follow the excellent speech from the hon. Member  for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). In my constituency we have two nuclear power stations, whose output going into the national grid at any given time makes up about 10% of our national energy. They are the largest employer in my constituency, and I have extended family members who work in the nuclear power industry. In fact, it is hard to find anybody in my constituency who does not. We do not just have nuclear, however; we have other forms of energy from wind all the way down to biomass and also, out to sea, what I believe is the largest offshore wind farm in Europe.
The initiatives that the Government are now bringing forward are long overdue. I remember, back in 2010, when the then Energy Secretary Chris Huhne delivered his first speech to the House under the coalition, in which he said that nuclear power would be funded by private enterprise. Afterwards, I had a chat with him about that and he told me that, in his opinion, nuclear was old technology and an outdated form of energy. Anybody in this House who knows me well, as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, will know my sense of humour. At that point, I said to Chris, “I think the wind has been blowing too hard between your ears, my old son.” He did not find that funny at all. The point I was trying to make to him was that we have an eclectic energy mix in this country of ours, from the great top of Scotland all the way down to the bottom end—and, dare I say it, we also get energy from the continent.
It is about time that we addressed how we are going to fund our future energy needs, especially nuclear. What has not been mentioned so far is that we are trying to get fossil fuels eradicated in one form or another within the next 40 years and that there will be more electric cars on the road. How are we going to power those electric cars? How are we going to meet that demand and keep the economy moving in an electrified form? It can only be done with nuclear power.
Nuclear power is the only form of energy we have that is constant. It is produced 24/7. The Walney wind farm produces a huge amount of energy for this country, but every one of those windmills would have to be producing energy at the same time to match the input into the grid of the two nuclear power stations in my constituency at that moment, whereas those two power stations are pumping energy into the national grid 24/7. It defies belief that we have not invested in nuclear power before now and that we have waited until this point to come up with a funding formula to do so.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making some good points about the incredible efficiency of nuclear power operating 24 hours a day. On the specific point of how to finance new nuclear power, does he agree that, when the financing for Hinkley Point was being developed almost a decade ago, it would have been impossible to do a regulated asset-based proposal because, having not built a new nuclear power station for a generation, the risks to the taxpayer would have been enormous? Now that Hinckley Point is being done, however, we can take that same model on to Sizewell C and then hopefully on to Wylfa and elsewhere, gaining experience, expertise and reductions in cost as we go along. Does he agree that this is therefore the right model at this time?

David Morris: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We can take forward this model of heavy lifters, which is how I refer to the bespoke power stations at Hinkley Point. Rolls-Royce has talked at length about a factory in which it would build modular nuclear power stations akin to the power plants on nuclear submarines, which are built not far from my constituency—we see them across the bay.
There are different models coming forward, and we are looking at and accelerating different types of approval because of the need for the low-carbon efficiency of nuclear power. Hinkley Point is a bespoke model, just like the huge heavy lifters we have at the Heysham 1 and 2 configurations in my constituency.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) that there are lots of jobs in the nuclear power industry. It is not just the people working in the power stations; it is the vast supply chain. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who is my friend outside the Chamber, raised his valid concern about the processing of nuclear waste, but at the old Sellafield site across the bay from my constituency there is a laboratory that converts used plutonium into forms we can use. Americium, for example, is a by-product of decaying plutonium and uranium, and it can be used to power satellites for 100 years—it cannot be used clandestinely. Plutonium is like a wine that gets better with age, and as it decays it produces something that can be used in a different context.
Other industries spin off from nuclear, and the reality is that we have to meet our energy demands. It is brilliant to see the new Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), in his place, and he is an old friend of mine. I am glad the Bill has been introduced, and I believe the whole House will back this initiative because we are a great nation collectively and this is how we will power our future industries, transport and economy.
It is good to see the Bill because nuclear is important to my constituency. We have one of eight footprints in the country on which we can build a nuclear power station, and my whole community welcomes this initiative.

Sarah Olney: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
If we did not already know that decarbonising our energy supply is one of the most urgent challenges facing not just this country but the whole world, the ongoing discussions in Glasgow at the COP26 summit have certainly informed us. There is now worldwide consensus on the need to phase out the use of coal and other fossil fuels in energy production, transport, heating and industry, and it is encouraging to hear some of the commitments made by delegates towards that goal. We have quite a good story to tell already on that in this country. In the UK, energy production accounts for approximately 15% of all carbon emissions. One significant challenge we face is how to replace the role of coal and fossil fuels in energy production with carbon-free alternatives, but we have already made great progress in decarbonising our energy supply. Carbon dioxide emissions from power stations were 75% lower in 2020 than in 1990, and this change has come about largely from the introduction of new energy sources, particularly renewables, such as wind and solar. The use of coal in our power supply fell sharply from the mid-2010s onwards, after which the use of renewables expanded rapidly. Wind power is now the cheapest form of electricity generation, and it was Government policy that made the substantial difference to this change, notably the decision of the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to introduce contracts for difference to incentivise private sector investment into the renewables sector. That Secretary of State was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), whom, I gather, went on to more exalted roles.
The legislation has strong precedents. Unlocking the barriers to private sector investment into carbon-free alternatives in our energy market has catalysed the changes we need to see. We need to go further to  make sure that we can completely decarbonise our energy sector, supporting renewables and household and community energy.

Mark Jenkinson: Does the hon. Lady not prefer France’s decarbonised electricity model to Germany’s model of ever-increasing emissions and air pollution because of its decisions to close down nuclear power stations and go back to burning lignite, the dirtiest form of coal there is?

Sarah Olney: My remarks are about the UK power sector, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about Germany. Clearly, as I think I have clearly stated, we want to move towards carbon-free alternatives to coal. I also want to make it clear that it is not our position that we should be closing down nuclear power stations; we support the ones that are currently operational and where contracts have been signed to open new ones. As I want to go on to make clear, our position is very much that there should not be new nuclear power stations. We need to go further to make sure that we can completely decarbonise our energy sector. We want to support renewables and household and community energy. It will create jobs. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) about jobs in the nuclear sector, let me say that the advantage of jobs in the renewables sector and in other alternative energy supplies is that they can be spread over a much larger area of the country. I believe he said that there are probably 18 viable sites for new nuclear power stations, many of which are concentrated in his part of the world. I am interested in job creation right across the country, and renewables offer much better opportunities for us on that.
Of course, we want to cut fossil fuel imports. On that basis, I strongly back the Government in what they are trying to achieve here, but not for nuclear. I wish to reiterate the Liberal Democrat position: there is currently no economic or environmental case for the construction of any further nuclear stations in the UK. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) set out, in his extensive and detailed speech, very much what we believe: there really is not a case for such construction.
A further point I wish to make is that it will take 20 years to build a new nuclear power station, however it is funded. We have very ambitious net zero targets. As the Minister said, we want to be net zero in our power sector by 2030, which is much sooner than in 20 years. We need to move considerably faster than that, and we already have the tools and technology to cut carbon significantly in our power sector in a much shorter period, so we need to accelerate the deployment of renewable power. We need to remove restrictions on solar and wind. We need to build more interconnectors to guarantee the security of supply. If we did that, we could reach at least 80% renewable electricity by 2030, which would be consistent with the Government’s aims to achieve net zero.
Notwithstanding the points made by other Members about the growth in demand for electricity from electric cars, we can do much more to reduce demand for electricity from existing sources.

Anthony Browne: The hon. Lady is making a strong case against nuclear power. Is she aware that it was her own party leader who signed off the Hinkley Point C deal?

Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am fully aware of that; I just want to reiterate that Liberal Democrat policy is that we are against any further nuclear power stations. We want to redouble our efforts on renewables, and I think I have probably said that several times now. We believe there is no economic or environmental case for further nuclear power stations.

Richard Graham: The position that I think the hon. Lady is taking is that the Liberal Democrats believe that all our future energy needs can be covered entirely by wind, both onshore and offshore, and possibly a bit of marine energy. What happens when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? That is precisely when the base contribution of nuclear energy is so vital. By not increasing nuclear capacity, the hon. Lady would not allow us to be able to produce the energy demanded by consumers, who include her constituents as well as those of all Government Members.

Sarah Olney: The current issue with renewables is one of storage, but the technology to address some of the problems is being developed at speed. It is clear that by putting our energies, investment and ingenuity into answering some of the questions in relation to storage in particular, but other things as well, we can achieve net zero much faster through renewables. It would be much more productive to invest in storage solutions than to invest in nuclear power.
Let me return to my point about the need to address electricity demand. Currently, households are a key source of demand, but a lot of that demand comes from inefficient buildings. We need to do much more to insulate the existing housing stock and to ensure that we have much better building standards for new builds. The Government need to do much more on that. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have released a report on the green homes grant, which was a total failure, and the report goes into a fair amount of detail as to why. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to get Britain’s homes insulated, because it is key that we use that as an opportunity to address the demand for power. We need to look at both sides of the equation.
If we can unlock more private sector investment, we can support investment in innovation and cutting-edge technologies, including tidal and wave power, energy storage, demand response, smart grids and hydrogen. My personal belief is that those things are much better uses of our time, energy, ingenuity and private sector capital than investing in more nuclear power stations.
In her intervention earlier the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who is no longer in her place, highlighted the grave risks of nuclear power. I urge the Government not to ignore, in their  enthusiasm for nuclear, the considerable downsides of nuclear waste. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I visited Sellafield last year, and I hope that every Government Member who promotes this Bill will also take the opportunity to do so. I found it so eye-opening in respect of the consequences of dealing with nuclear waste and the considerable time, effort and money that is still now being spent to dispose of nuclear waste that was generated in the 1970s, before I was born. It was just extraordinary and really brought home to me the literally toxic legacy that we leave for future generations when we create nuclear waste. I am not confident in some of the proposed solutions to deal with it, which could have grave environmental consequences. We cannot be confident that in 50 years’ time people will take nuclear waste seriously and that the right procedures will be in place.
I urge the Government to take nuclear waste very seriously indeed. We spend billions every year to dispose of it, which is why it is of interest to the Public Accounts Committee. The issue dates back to the fuel crisis in the ’70s, when the Government prioritised keeping the lights on. The costs are an ongoing liability for future generations and divert Government spending from other purposes. We need to be very careful before we propose to increase the existing legacy of toxic waste. I feel very strongly about that and urge the Government fully to consider the downsides.
In summary, we do not need new nuclear power stations. We want more private sector investment in innovative solutions and to spread the jobs bonus throughout the country. We cannot afford the legacy of nuclear waste that the Government propose to leave to future generations. We will vote against Second Reading.

Chris Green: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). It was interesting to hear the contrast between the position of the Liberal Democrats a few years ago and their position now, but we have to respect those views, which do change with time.
Part of the context of this debate is the concern over energy security, which is so important. Obviously, there have been spikes in gas demand and gas prices, but we need only look at the situation in Texas and California a little while ago to see how energy supplies can be affected, which is why we in the United Kingdom need to ensure that we have energy security. As with other European countries, we ought not to be as dependent on energy supplies from countries that are not as friendly as they might be to our national interests. We need only look at random events across the globe, such as the one that happened in the Suez canal, to see how supply chains can be so dramatically affected. We therefore need that secure energy supply, and nuclear is a key part of that for the United Kingdom.
We also need firm energy, or that baseload energy. We hear a great deal of discussion about solar panels and wind turbines, whether at sea or on land, but those provide intermittent energy. We cannot rely on that energy, although it does have an important contribution to make; that is why nuclear energy ought to form a key part of our reliable energy production.
There is a great deal of interest in this area in the north-west of England. Many of our skills are centred there, whether it be Sellafield, Warrington or Heysham, and that huge wealth of talent needs to be maintained. We also have the important Springfields site near Preston, which produces our nuclear fuels. We need to ensure that the site is secured. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, when future contracts are given for nuclear power stations, the future viability of the Springfields site in the short, medium and long term is secured within the context of those contracts. Springfields does a huge amount of good for the local economy. It is also a wonderful source of apprenticeships. These are often very high-skilled and very well-paid jobs that we ought to be promoting and certainly protecting.
Hinkley Point C is at an advanced stage of construction. We need to look at the skills being developed at that site, and ensure that they are retained within the nuclear sector, so we need to be looking at when Sizewell C will be funded and brought online.

Siobhan Baillie: That is exactly the point that Vulcain Engineering in Stroud has been explaining to me. We have a fusion bid in at the moment, which is an amazing opportunity, but the company is very clear that if we do not have another nuclear project in play we will lose so many of those jobs and skills—not only from the south-west, but from the whole UK. They will go abroad and will not come back.

Chris Green: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We need to secure those jobs and we need, as early as possible, to give that reassurance to engineers and others and say to them, “Your future is in the nuclear industry.” In that way, people can be focused on sticking with the industry and looking for that next job. It is about building that fleet of nuclear power stations. Whether it is Sizewell or further power stations down the line—there are already eight sites that have been identified for future nuclear—we need to give workers the reassurance that their skills are needed within the sector.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend rightly referred to the phrase “a fleet of nuclear power stations”. Of course, in that context, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would be the aircraft carriers, as would anything in the future in Wylfa, but there are also opportunities for the smaller frigates. That is where the small modular reactors being proposed by Rolls-Royce could come as an extremely useful addition to those aircraft carriers. Does he agree?

Chris Green: That is such an important point. I agree entirely that we already have the larger-scale nuclear reactors and the established technology. It is so important that we look at SMRs and AMRs, and at the leadership that can be provided in a consortium by Rolls-Royce. If we get in early and develop that technology in the United Kingdom, we can export it around the world and create more wealth in the United Kingdom from this incredibly important source of energy and the power stations.

Bob Stewart: As I listen to discussions on the expansion of nuclear capability in this country, it slightly worries me that we have not talked about the security of those assets. My worry is that they could be interfered with by some foreign power in a cyber-attack. That must be part of all the planning for these places.

Chris Green: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The physical security is one aspect, but the cyber-security, including firewalls and other protections, is immensely important to the sector. This energy provision is a key strategic interest and we cannot allow anything to interfere with it, but I am sure that the Minister and the experts in the sector are well aware of those threats.

Alan Brown: On security, I presume that the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns about China General Nuclear being involved at Hinkley and still being in the mix for Sizewell C.

Chris Green: I am concerned about the strategic national interest, but I think that most people at home would need to have reassurance on this: the security risk of the technical aspects, to which people might be more sensitive, is different from the financial aspects, which is what the Chinese involvement is at the moment. Those are two very different things. However, I do acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Mark Jenkinson: On security, the Office for Nuclear Regulation is considered to be one of the best nuclear regulators in the world. I certainly have faith in its being able to do its job, but is not the reason why state-backed companies are involved in nuclear construction that they have the money to put in up front? Is not this legislation exactly what we need to remove the need for them to be involved?

Chris Green: I agree entirely that there are huge challenges for the private sector to come up with the cash for the nuclear sector, because of providing the money up front; it takes such a long time to build a power station before energy or electricity can be produced, and people can get returns for their money. That is why the regulated asset-based model is key. It has been used in other areas successfully, so it is now seen as a reliable way of financing large projects.
Now is the time to make progress in this area. We have the skills base, the national need and the national security questions. All these things come together at the same time to make a compelling argument, so I am pleased that the Government are bringing this legislation forward, whether it is for the larger-scale nuclear reactors or the smaller-scale nuclear reactors. Let me finally say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that he has an interest in this—that, in the slightly longer term, if we do develop the fusion reactors, perhaps this funding model could be used there.

Anthony Browne: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). I speak wearing my hat as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, and I want to touch on some of the environmental issues addressed by some Opposition Members.
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima: the names of the world’s nuclear accidents haunt people around the planet to this day. Fears of lethal invisible radiation killing thousands of people and laying waste swathes of the planet—these are very audible concerns. But then there are the facts. No one died from Three Mile Island,  and studies afterwards showed that there was no measurable increase in cancer rates. One person died from Fukushima. Again, post-accident studies showed no measurable impact on cancer rates.
Then there is Chernobyl. I have been to Chernobyl—to Chernobyl village itself. I went with the United Nations, which spent a long time studying the medical impact of the world’s worst nuclear accident for 15 years after it happened. There I saw the alarming sight of happy villagers who had refused to leave after the accident and were taking the opportunity to restore the beautiful Chernobyl village church; they took a delight in showing me around it. I met a mother in Chernobyl village who had conceived and given birth to a totally healthy baby. Yes, 41 rescuers died of acute radiation sickness in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and there was a measurable increase in childhood thyroid cancer, which is, luckily, vanishingly rare, but otherwise the UN scientists found no measurable negative medical effects from the nuclear accident itself and concluded they had been vastly exaggerated.
We have now had nuclear power around the world for nigh on 70 years, and it has proven to be just about the safest and greenest form of energy. Safety is measured in the industry in terms of deaths per terawatt-hour of energy production, taking all direct and indirect deaths into account, including through the supply chain. For coal, it is 24.6 deaths per terawatt hour; for oil, 18.4; for biomass, 4.6; and for gas, 2.8. For nuclear, it is 0.07. Yes, that is a bit higher than wind, solar and hydropower, although in roughly the same ballpark, but several orders of magnitude lower than other forms of power, and in terms of CO2 emissions, nuclear produces less than hydropower. It is about the cleanest and safest form of energy in the world, and it is, as we have heard today, massively scalable.
So why have we not embraced it? I will tell you why:
“Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media.”
Those are not my words but those of James Lovelock, one of the most eminent environmental scientists, who founded the whole Gaia thesis. As a former environment editor of The Observer and The Times, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, I believe that the environment movement has been one of the most important and positive movements of the last half century. The fact that we are all environmentalists now—including the Queen, I note—proves the positive impact the movement has had. However, the environment movement made a major strategic error by campaigning so hard against nuclear power. Increasingly, many environmentalists agree. Even as Fukushima was still smoking, George Monbiot, the environmental leader, had a damascene conversion and started making the moral case for nuclear power.
If we believe that climate change is the biggest threat to the planet, we have to use every tool in the toolbox to combat it. We have a moral obligation not to campaign against the one technology that can probably help more than almost any other to get to net zero.

Chris Green: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that with nuclear we have existing established technologies that can be used and rolled out, even though the timescale in the Bill is reasonably long, but other technologies  that we would desire to come down the line in the future are not established and currently cannot work at the scale we need?

Anthony Browne: I absolutely agree. As I said, we have had nuclear for 70 years and we know that it works. The point I was about to come to, which my hon. Friend touched on earlier, is that the French have 70% of electricity produced by nuclear and they have a very well-established industry. It is not politically controversial at all. They have made it work and made it cost-effective. That is one of the reasons why France has far lower carbon dioxide emissions that we do in the UK. We should change to other technologies. We heard mention of tidal power earlier—yes, absolutely. However, there have been many projects to try to make tidal power work over the past few decades and none of them has yet quite succeeded, although we should still carry on trying.
As I have said many times in this House, the UK has had a really good track record in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, roughly halving them. Our per-capita emissions are now lower than those of many other countries, including green icons such as Denmark and Norway, but France has had lower emissions than us for decades because of nuclear power. I used to live in Belgium and got my electricity bills from France, and they used to have to say where the electricity came from: “nonante-neuf pour cent nucléaire”, which is—in Belgian French, not French French—“99% nuclear power”. That was always a delight for me. Driving around France, nuclear power stations are all over the place. It is not a political issue; people are very comfortable with it.
The environment movement has been very successful in demonising nuclear power beyond any scientific justification. That in part is why UK Governments have been so nervous, and it has meant as a country we have gone from being a world leader in nuclear power and one of the first to introduce it to being a straggler with a semi-clapped-out sector, as we have heard, with all these power plants going out and without much expertise, so that we end up depending on foreign companies and foreign Governments to be able to do anything. We have to build up our capacity again as a country. As we move away from nuclear fuels, we need a strong nuclear sector more than ever.

Alan Brown: The hon. Gentleman is talking about demonising nuclear, but is having a £132 billion waste legacy to clean up demonising nuclear, or pointing out a harsh reality?

Anthony Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which I was going to come to. Clearly nuclear has to be cost-effective throughout the whole lifecycle, and there is a burden of responsibility on the Government to ensure that is the case, although I must admit I do not recognise the £132 billion figure.
As we move away from fossil fuels, we need nuclear power more than we did in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s when we were developing it. As we start using electricity to heat our homes and power our cars, we need more production capacity that is resilient and secure. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made a point about energy efficiency, and I completely and utterly support that, but as we move away from fossil fuels across other  areas of the economy and our lives, the demand for electricity will go up rather than down, whatever we do with efficiency. That is inevitable, so we need to ensure we have more production and more secure production.
The recent spike in gas prices has shown our national vulnerability if we do not have resilient energy suppliers, and we must guard against that happening to electricity suppliers. We cannot risk windless days and dark days leading to blackouts in future. Wind, solar and hydrogen power are wonderful. We have done great in rolling them out—wind power produces more energy than any other source and that is great—but they are not the sole solution. We need every tool in the toolbox. We need to ensure that we can provide the stable, resilient base-load that we will increasingly need as we move away from fossil fuels.
In the various debates I have had about nuclear power over the decades, anti-nuclear campaigners normally pipe up at this point with, “Nuclear power is not a good use of taxpayers’ money.” That is when I know they have largely run out of other arguments. Obviously nuclear has to be value-for-money. I am an economic, fiscal Conservative. We want to go for the best value forms of energy, not the expensive ones. It needs to be financially sustainable, and we need to look at the whole lifecycle costs of nuclear power. Clearly the Government have a duty to do that, and that is what the Bill is about. The Government have to ensure we have the right financial framework to ensure that the nuclear industry can survive and thrive and in the most cost-effective way possible. If companies are to invest multiple billions of pounds to build nuclear reactors, they need to do it in the lowest risk way, otherwise the cost of capital becomes prohibitive and the projects are not viable.
I used to work at Morgan Stanley, the US investment bank, and we had a big infrastructure fund investing in projects around the world—not nuclear, I have to say, but many other different sectors. When assessing new infrastructure investment, we have to factor in many of the risks. There is construction risk: can we build the thing? There is technology risk: if it is a new technology, will it work? There is political risk: what if there is a new Government who change their mind and say no? Then there is demand risk or volume risk: will there be enough demand for the product and will it be at the right price to generate the revenues to pay for the cost of capital being put up front to build it?
The trouble with the previous financing regime is that it did not deal with the first risks and expected companies to bear all those risks up front at cost to themselves. That meant that many companies found they had just too much risk to make the projects viable. It is not surprising that some companies ended up pulling out of nuclear power stations they had been planning to build.
The regulated asset base model that the Bill brings about is a far better model for financing the building of nuclear power stations, because it properly shares construction risk, political risk and technology risk between the public sector, consumers and companies. The RAB model is a completely standard model that has been widely used in other areas of infrastructure for decades and is well understood, as various Members have pointed out. The Government and companies have experience of the RAB model. We know it works well and we know how to make it work well in the interests of both parties. I am delighted that we are on the front  foot again with nuclear power as a country. As we progress and improve our expertise as a nation, as we have heard we need to do, nuclear power will get more standardised, easier to build and better value for money. The Government must continue to have courage in their convictions with nuclear power. I fully commend the Bill to the House.

Alun Cairns: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for energy security.
The development of new nuclear power stations in the UK is long overdue. Right hon. and hon. Members have made excellent points about the need for energy. The period of outright objection more than 20 years ago, and the stop-start nature of progress in the last decade, have largely stemmed from the funding challenges faced by new nuclear power stations.
The Bill is a major positive and significant step to help to meet our net zero carbon agenda and to secure our energy supply, which has come into clear focus in recent weeks. The challenge of the gas supply and the variability in renewable sources have led to a sharp rise in energy costs, the bankruptcies of many providers and an alarming worry for constituents. Some businesses have even been forced to operate at reduced capacity because of energy supply challenges. Europe as a whole has been exposed as vulnerable to other states’ decisions.
New nuclear diversifies the supply, delivers energy from within the UK, and offers a reliable, stable and clean source of energy that can form a major part of our baseload electricity needs. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said, diversification is important and nuclear is fundamental to providing the necessary energy security.
The argument in favour of nuclear power has been won among the public for some time, yet until now, we have not been able to develop projects that minimise the financial risk to the public as taxpayers and as consumers. The regulated asset base financing model is therefore a significant positive step that I strongly support, because it has the capacity to reduce the cost of capital to allow projects that would otherwise remain on the drawing board to move forward.
Much of the policy’s success will focus on assessing risk. RAB has been used successfully in other major infrastructure projects around the world, and there is no reason it cannot be used for new nuclear, but its evolution will not be straightforward. The challenge will come in assessing and costing the risks faced by developers. New nuclear is different from some of the more predictable models that RAB has been used for, so we will have to be open and candid about the challenges as we develop the policy.
The biggest challenges of developing new nuclear come in the early construction stages when operation is typically 10 years or more away and when design problems and implementation faults emerge. They often lead to significant cost overruns and the need for changes at a huge cost financially and with long delays. Those uncertainties have hampered the development of new  nuclear through more traditional financing models for so long. RAB will help, but the risks and costing the risks will remain.
I was closely involved in Wylfa Newydd, the Horizon proposal by Hitachi on Anglesey, and along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), developed a third-third-third finance plan between the UK taxpayer, Hitachi and the utility companies to bear the risks of the early stages in particular. Despite the Government offering a third of those capital costs, including covering the financing costs in the proposal, the project stalled. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) who is working tirelessly to keep the project alive. I am optimistic about its future. That highlights the challenges, but does not negate the risk or the assessment of the risk. RAB certainly overcomes the challenges of financing costs, which is welcome, but I ask the Minister to recognise that central to the policy’s success is assessing the risk and, therefore, the costing of the risk. Any further detail as the Bill passes through the House and the other place will be helpful in reassuring investors, policy makers and operators in the process.
The RAB policy is an excellent fit for SMRs and AMRs, and will be even more so once the first concept has been proven. The repeat structures of SMRs and AMRs will allow such projects finally to get off the ground significantly. I gently remind the Minister that when the nuclear strategy was launched, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and I visited Trawsfynydd in north Wales to highlight how it and Wylfa on Anglesey were both perfect sites for small modular reactors. I hope that he will recognise that as policy initiatives develop.
I want to support the Minister and the Bill’s proposals. This is a welcome, major and positive step in satisfying our energy demand, achieving our climate goals and securing our energy needs and supply. Assessment of the risk is central. As I mentioned, despite challenges we sought to overcome with fair and generous offers, challenges will remain, but RAB will play a big part in overcoming them. The detail of how we assess and cost the risk as part of the RAB model will be fundamental to giving confidence to investors and the nuclear industry.

David Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) pointed out, all the events of COP26 are proceeding in Glasgow as we speak, which reminds us forcibly of the need to reduce still further greenhouse gas emissions from our energy-generating sector. While recent years have seen a notable increase in energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar, it must be recognised—as many hon. Members have—that such forms of generation are intermittent, so other sources must be pursued to produce the reliable, predictable baseload of generation that a modern economy needs.
Hon. Members have pointed out other technologies that can produce reliable baseload generation. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned pumped storage, and of course the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme in north Wales is an exemplar  of such technology. Similarly, there are proposals for a large-scale tidal range lagoon in Colwyn Bay in my constituency, which, with a projected installed capacity of more than 2 GW, would be a major generating station by any standards. However, we must recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Minister did in opening the debate, that the most proven technology is nuclear, and we should certainly pursue that, too.
While I was at the Wales Office, I devoted much of my personal energy to trying to secure the construction of the Wylfa Newydd nuclear station on Anglesey. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for all her efforts in trying to revive that project. It was a happy day in November 2012 when Hitachi announced its purchase of the Horizon operating company. There was no doubt about its enthusiasm for the project. I visited the Hitachi construction factory in Hitachi city in Japan and spoke to a senior nuclear engineer. He told me that Wylfa was the very best location he had seen anywhere in the world for a nuclear power station, so it was not anything wrong with the site that saw off Wylfa Newydd; it was the contracts for difference financing model. The strike price that was offered was too low and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan pointed out, even an equity deal between the British Government, the Japanese Government and the operators could not make it work. The Government are therefore entirely right to look for a different funding model.
The regulated asset base model has a good track record of funding major infrastructure projects; it was successfully used to fund both Heathrow terminal 5 and the Thames tideway tunnel. Importantly, as other hon. Members have pointed out, it is a model that can be used to attract private funding, making the need to rely on foreign sources of funding less likely and, it is to be hoped, obviating the need to look to companies directly or indirectly controlled by foreign Governments, some not entirely friendly, to develop our new nuclear fleet.
The Bill will be welcomed in north Wales. I mention north Wales in particular because it has a long history of expertise in the nuclear industry. Not only does the Bill put the potential of developing Wylfa back on the agenda, but it offers hope of providing a funding model for a new fleet of small modular reactors. There has for some time been a call for a pathfinder SMR project at Trawsfynydd, where the old reactor has for many years been in a state of decommissioning. The local authority, and the Welsh Government too, support the development of SMRs at Trawsfynydd. This is the opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to take the lead in an exciting new project that could establish the United Kingdom as a leader in the technology, as well as provide a new centre of excellence in a location that has established nuclear expertise.
I welcome the Bill, which provides the opportunity for a new funding model and the prospect of a revived nuclear industry in north Wales. However, I wish again to echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan. The question of potential cost overruns is a significant issue. It is important that the Government make a very careful assessment of the likely costs. It has been pointed out by commentators that pension funds may be reluctant to invest in such projects unless they can be assured that the costs will be  kept under control, so that is key. Otherwise, I fully welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting its Second Reading.

Peter Aldous: I am pleased to speak in support of this Bill, which facilitates the provision of a secure energy supply, will ultimately keep down consumers’ bills, and is crucial to achieving our net zero obligations. Specifically, along with the announcement in last week’s Budget, the Bill paves the way for the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk, which can bring enormous benefits to the county, to the Waveney area and to Lowestoft.
We need new nuclear, as it provides energy security. It is the only proven technology that can supply low-carbon baseload at scale. It complements, rather than competes with, the growth of renewables—in particular, in an East Anglian context, offshore wind. It also promotes the development of other clean technologies, such as hydrogen, which is planned at Sizewell, direct air capture and, in due course, small modular reactors.
The funding mechanism presented in the Bill is the regulated asset base model, which, with the right safeguards, has the advantage of driving down the cost of capital for such large infrastructure projects, acts as a catalyst for private sector investment and, according to Government analysis, can lead to savings to consumers of at least £30 billion.
Along with offshore wind, Sizewell C can bring great benefits to the local Suffolk and East Anglian economy. It is estimated that during the 12-year construction period, £2 billion will be put into the Suffolk economy. During that period, there will be three apprenticeship cycles and 1,500 apprenticeships can be created. This is an opportunity to leave an enduring legacy of knowledge, skills and infrastructure which in the long term, once construction has been completed and Sizewell C is operational, can make Lowestoft and Waveney an attractive location in which to set up and grow a business.
There is much work to do, but a good start has been made, with Sizewell C and East Coast College signing a memorandum of understanding to deliver the skills needed for this and other major projects in the area. It includes support for a civil engineering campus at Lound, to the north of Lowestoft; engagement with the Energy Skills Centre in Lowestoft itself; and collaboration on welding and fabrication capacity and capabilities.
The Bill and the hive of activity over the past 10 days are extremely welcome, although some might say 20 years too late. Subject to the development consent order being approved, let us get on with it and, in doing so, enhance our energy security, help to propel us along the road to net zero, and bring enduring jobs and prosperity to local people in Suffolk and in my constituency.

Virginia Crosbie: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is so erudite and passionate, and to speak on Second Reading.
My constituency of Ynys Môn is known as “energy island”: we have wind, wave, solar and tidal. We are soon to have hydrogen, and we have a long history in nuclear. Back in 1963, construction began on an £80 million  nuclear power station at Wylfa head, near Cemaes on Anglesey. It was chosen for its strong rock foundation and its access to sea water. Its two nuclear reactors went live in 1971. At the time, Anglesey was considered to have
“leapt dramatically forward into the space age”.
The station was described as
“the nation’s biggest and most powerful…yet interfering as little as possible with the beauty of the Anglesey scenery”.
Some 3,000 people were involved in its construction and in 1964, 20 local 16-year-olds became the first apprentice intake. They trained to become
“the youngest engineers to take charge of an atomic power station in the world”.
At its height, Wylfa employed around 500 people. Just along the coast, an aluminium smelting works, employing a similar number of people, was built in Holyhead to be able to access cheap electricity direct from Wylfa.
In 2006, however, as the lifespan of Wylfa power station was drawing to an end, the Isle of Anglesey County Council voted to support the construction of a second plant. Wylfa B, now known as Wylfa Newydd, was intended to take over from Wylfa as it came to the end of its working life. Employment was a key factor. Losing so many jobs would be tough on any part of the UK, but on Anglesey there simply was not any comparable industry on the island for people to move to. It is estimated that at the height of construction, Wylfa Newydd, or new Wylfa, would employ around 9,000 and in steady state production would have a workforce of around 900.
The old Wylfa ceased generation in 2015. The aluminium works closed shortly afterwards and just under 1,000 jobs disappeared almost overnight, yet Wylfa Newydd is still on the cards. The people of Anglesey have been on a 16-year rollercoaster journey, with the prospect of quality new careers constantly just over the horizon. The majority of Anglesey residents actively support Wylfa Newydd, but they feel forgotten. They have had enough of being offered carrots only to receive disappointment. That is why the Bill is so important to my constituency of Ynys Môn.
When Hitachi withdrew the development consent order for Wylfa Newydd at the start of this year, it cited programme financing as the main factor. I am co-founder and chair of the nuclear delivery group, which I set up with my fellow atomic kitten, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is a passionate advocate for nuclear. Over the past 18 months, we have regularly raised new-build financing as a significant concern. I am delighted to see BEIS respond to this issue and bring this Bill to the table. Companies such as Bechtel and Rolls-Royce are already keen to establish new nuclear at Wylfa Newydd, so this proposed regulated asset base model offers significant hope to Anglesey.
The Bill could be the starting point for regenerating an area that desperately needs levelling up. It could finally lead the people of Anglesey over the horizon into a whole field of carrots. With that in mind, I appeal to my constituents and the people of north Wales, who would also benefit: now is the time for us to come together as a community and embrace the opportunity that the Bill offers us. We cannot afford to stay in our  partisan corners, we cannot afford to stay silent, and we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip through our fingers.
In 2015, the Welsh Government described Wylfa Newydd as a “once in a generation opportunity” and estimated that it could be worth £5.7 billion to the Welsh economy. Ten years on, this project will be a game changer locally, regionally and nationally. Nearly two decades of waiting for Wylfa Newydd may finally be coming to an end. Wylfa Newydd is rightly described as the best nuclear site in the UK. The Prime Minister has said that he is a “fervent supporter”.
I welcome the Bill and, for the sake of our young people and future generations, we must put aside our political differences and work together. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: Diolch yn fawr.

James Daly: It is a pleasure to follow such a powerful, articulate, passionate speech, as I think everybody would agree, and I want to develop some of the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
I wanted to take part in this debate not because of any great knowledge of the nuclear industry, but because of the impact that it has on my region and the people in it. I am the chair of the all-party group on youth employment. We constantly strive to find new industries—new technologies—or developing existing industries to provide the high-skilled, high-paid jobs that people want in my constituency, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) and in the whole of the north of England. The north of England has a great legacy in nuclear. It was the home of the first nuclear power station 65 years ago and now houses close to half the country’s 60,000 employees in the civil nuclear workforce. They are all based in our region.
Therefore, what opportunities are we talking about? What opportunities does new nuclear present to the north of England? There is support for investment in businesses in the north in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Jobs and skills were mentioned in various speeches by my hon. Friends. There is the preservation and growth of an expert, 60,000-strong supply chain, which includes Sillavan metals in my constituency, a company that is expanding, developing technology and giving young people opportunities through apprenticeships. All these industries are related to this Bill.
It is also fair to say that many jobs in the north of England have been revitalised by Hinkley Point C. Those jobs, skills and investment across the supply chain in the north of England come from investment in nuclear, but we also have clean growth, with low-carbon, always-on power to support renewables and facilitate the development of other clean tech such as hydrogen, direct air capture and small modular reactors to accelerate clean growth and new industries across the region, including decarbonisation clusters in Teesside and in Yorkshire and the Humber. There is energy security,  with firm, clean base-load power to the grid that will support renewables and give us greater control in our transition to net zero while helping to wean Britain off its reliance on energy imports.
This truly is a Bill that is at the heart of the north of England and can have an impact on many, many lives. The regulated asset base that the Bill introduces has been articulately covered by other hon. Members, so I will speak about Sizewell C, about which I agree with every point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made. I also agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead): essentially, I interpret the Bill as finding a way to finance Sizewell C and its positive impact.
Hearing of the developments happening in Waveney bring joy to my heart as chair of the APPG on youth employment, but there is no reason why those opportunities cannot be spread more widely, including in the north of England. Sizewell C is the only nuclear project that is ready to start construction and realise the benefits of new nuclear for the north of England, hopefully within this Parliament.
More than 90% of the UK’s civil nuclear workforce is based outside London and the south-east, with nearly half in the north of England. More than 500 businesses based in the north of England are currently involved in the construction of Hinkley Point, so Sizewell C presents a huge long-term opportunity for the north of England.
I am sure that many MPs have been contacted by the consortium that is involved and wish to take the project forward. We cannot ignore the fact that the consortium has pledged £2.5 billion of private sector investment and 13,000 jobs just in the north if Sizewell C goes ahead. There is a downside if it does not go ahead: there could be up to 10,000 losses due to the failure to properly transition workers from the Hinkley Point project.
Sizewell C is a legacy project that will generate 3.2 GW of clean, low-carbon electricity—enough to power 6 million homes, including across the north. What is there not to like about the Bill? As ever, the Government are levelling up, creating opportunities and ensuring that we have a clean, reliable, resilient source of the power that our country needs.

Nigel Evans: We now come to the wind-ups, but the shadow Minister is slightly detained.

Alan Whitehead: He’s gone to the loo, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: He has, yes.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Nigel Evans: What do you want to say, Mr Goodwill? You have only just come in.

Robert Goodwill: Well, I could say a few words if we have time. [Interruption.] Oh, he’s here now.

Nigel Evans: None the less, thank you for your consideration. Seamlessly, we now move on to the wind-ups. I call Matthew Pennycook.

Matthew Pennycook: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thought that another contributor was waiting to speak before me.
It is a pleasure to wind up the Second Reading debate for the Opposition. Notwithstanding the somewhat overly partisan opening from the Minister of State, who came along, as he often does, with a set of pre-scripted remarks that were in danger of being as old as some of the nuclear plants that are presently being decommissioned, it has been a considered and well-informed debate in the main. I thank each right hon. or hon. Member who has taken part.
I will pick up on three points that have featured prominently. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) argued convincingly, although the Bill has the appearance of a general piece of enabling legislation, it is in practice concerned solely with the future of Sizewell C; I believe that the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) has just conceded that. Sizewell C is a project that EDF has no intention of financing from its own balance sheet and that we know has failed to entice the necessary private investors, as the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) mentioned in relation to Moorside and the fact that the current funding model is not fit for purpose.
It is vital that we bear that point in mind as the Bill progresses, because unfortunately for some, and much as the spin might suggest otherwise, it does not herald the dawn of a new nuclear fleet. It is simply a necessary means of resolving the issue of whether Sizewell, the last potential nuclear project that could conceivably begin to generate by the end of this decade, is constructed or not, and—this was referred to by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and, in an intervention, by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—the issue of whether the cost reductions that will flow from the plant being a clone of Hinkley Point C, and its ability to draw on the skills and workforce associated with that site, are secured.
Several Members, including the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), argued that nuclear should not form any part of the UK’s future low-carbon energy mix. We on this side of the House respect their strongly held views on the subject, but we take the view, as does the Committee on Climate Change, that a limited amount of new nuclear is required to achieve the decarbonisation of the UK’s electricity system within the next 14 years, and to meet our longer-term net zero target. Since Sizewell C is the only power station that can now feasibly come online within that timeframe, we want to ensure that it does, in order to provide the necessary amount of firm power to support a predominantly renewable energy mix.

Alan Brown: As I pointed out earlier—and the hon. Gentleman is well aware of this—much of the existing nuclear fleet is going offline before Hinkley even comes online. Does that not indicate that the grid could operate safely and we could have energy security without relying on a new nuclear station?

Matthew Pennycook: I listened carefully, as I always do, to what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. I think what he misses is the fact that the demand for   electricity will double, so I do not think that his argument about the amount of baseload or firm power that is required necessarily follows.

Robert Goodwill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I will, but then I must make some progress.

Robert Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that we may need to generate large amounts of hydrogen, or indeed use nuclear energy for direct carbon capture, and perhaps synthesise jet fuel in that way?

Matthew Pennycook: I think we will need a range of technologies. Let me return to a point that has been made by several Members. I think we must take a lead from the Committee on Climate Change, which made its view very clear in its balanced pathway scenario for the sixth carbon budget. It estimates that we will  need 10 GW of nuclear power by 2035. We will have a predominantly renewable energy system, but we do need the firm power that comes from a limited degree of nuclear to support that.
My second point relates to what has been the elephant in the room today, namely China’s involvement in UK nuclear power. As we debate the principle of the Bill today and scrutinise its provisions in the weeks to come, that issue cannot be set aside. Members in all parts of the House want to understand more fully precisely where the Government now stand on the deeply flawed deal that they struck with China General Nuclear in relation to Sizewell, which has been mentioned several times in the debate.
The CGN stake in Sizewell was without doubt a sweetener for the far larger prize of unfettered Chinese ownership and operation of a nuclear plant at Bradwell, but while it seems certain that the very notion of a Chinese-run UK nuclear plant is now dead, we have yet to hear Ministers say so explicitly, or tell the House how the Government intend to disentangle themselves from the 2016 investment agreement signed by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). We deserve to be told, and I hope that the Minister will at least make some reference to that issue in his closing remarks. We also need to know how the Government plan to divest CGN of its minority stake in Sizewell C, and what the estimated impact of that divestment will be on the overall financing of the project, because that issue has very real implications for the mechanism that the Government have chosen to enable Sizewell to progress, namely the RAB model.
That brings me to my third and final point. A number of Members, including the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood spoke clearly and forcefully about the advantages of the RAB model. It is not in dispute that the proposed model will lower the cost of capital on nuclear projects—I fully accept that—and it is also not in dispute that it would lower overall costs, although Labour Members take issue with the frankly heroic assumptions that underpin the claimed £30 billion to £80 billion in long-term savings vis-à-vis coal-fired financed projects. However, it is also undeniably the case that these advantages would be secured as a result of shifting a proportion of risk on to consumers.
It is worth emphasising not only that the RAB for which the Bill would provide, and the risk therefore entailed in it, are of a different order of magnitude from RAB arrangements utilised on other infrastructure projects, but also that when it comes to the yearly surcharges levied on customers on those projects financed via RAB arrangements—for example, the Thames tideway tunnel, which has been mentioned
several times today—there is an inherent degree of uncertainty about the level at which those charges might peak. That is why it is important that the right hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) rightly emphasised the need to scrutinise the precise arrangements that will be brought forward and the need for safeguards when doing so.
While we on this side of the House acknowledge the advantages of the RAB model for new nuclear compared with contracts for difference financing, we have concerns about the potential exposure of customers if costs rise significantly or if serious overruns take place. We do not oppose the principle of the Bill, and we have no intention of voting against it this evening, but we intend to look very carefully in Committee at precisely how the Government intend to implement the RAB model in question, at whether its benefits are as significant as has been claimed, and at how many investors the Government expect to return to the UK market if this legislation passes. Most importantly, we want to work with the Government to explore ways in which consumers might be better protected from escalating costs in the event that things go wrong. New nuclear must provide secure and affordable low-carbon energy, but it is still by no means clear that the Bill stands to deliver in both those respects. It is imperative that it should do so.

George Freeman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and I want to thank him and all hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate. We have had more than 15 speeches and a number of important interventions. I also want to thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his constructive approach to this important piece of legislation.
In the seven minutes available to me to wrap up the debate, I want to try to deal with as many of the points that have been made as possible. First, I would like to remind the House of what the Bill really signifies and what it does. The net zero strategy, published earlier this month, sets out our vision for a decarbonised economy by 2050. This will see the power sector fully decarbonised by 2035, with nuclear power playing a key role alongside renewables. As the Prime Minister set out from the Dispatch Box earlier today, he and the Cabinet are putting every effort at COP into delivering that international leadership to that end.
This Bill creates a new funding model for future nuclear projects that will support our transition to a secure, resilient and affordable low-carbon electricity system. The measures in the Bill are critical to ensuring that we have the option to bring forward further nuclear capacity, delivering a system that is lower in cost for  consumers than if we relied on intermittent power sources alone. While consumers will contribute to the cost of new nuclear projects during their construction, analysis shows that lowering the cost of financing new nuclear will save roughly £30 billion over the life of this refinancing, compared with relying on existing mechanisms.
It is good to hear that the Opposition will, sensibly, not vote against the Bill tonight. I would be surprised if any Member decided to vote against it—

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

George Freeman: No, I will not give way. I am under time pressure and I need to deal with all the points that have been raised—[Interruption.] I have at least half an hour of questions to answer, not least from the hon. Member himself.
The Bill will make it easier to attract, and reduce the cost of, capital. However, a number of points have been raised by hon. Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who raised the urgency of tackling the downscaling  and ending of the existing nuclear fleet, the urgency of getting this new financing in place and the role of nuclear in levelling up in Somerset and elsewhere in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) powerfully set out the importance of tidal. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) set out the importance of the nuclear cluster in his constituency and the importance of the 24/7 supply of nuclear for reliability, resilience and baseload.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) highlighted the role of nuclear in developing apprenticeships and skills, and the role of this model in funding fusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) raised the question of security. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) made a very powerful speech on the failures of the environmental movement, which has put such irrational fear in the way of the nuclear industry, setting us back two decades.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), the former Secretary of State for Wales, powerfully made the case that Wales stands to benefit substantially but we need to get the cost and the risk assessment right. He also highlighted the role of small modular reactors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) highlighted the role of the Welsh cluster, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted the role of Lowestoft in this industry in tackling coastal regeneration. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who has been a formidable campaigner for energy in her constituency and the whole of north Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly).
Given the extraordinary benefits of this extraordinary sector—60,000 people employed in the UK, with 90% of those jobs not in London and the south-east but across the country; each worker in the nuclear sector contributing an average of £96,000 gross value added to the economy, 73% higher than the rest; and a median salary of approximately £45,000—it is extraordinary why anyone would oppose it, particularly hon. Members  from Scotland, which has huge potential. The local economic impacts are huge: look at Hinkley Point and its well over 10,000 job opportunities and more than 3,600 British companies in its supply chain. Overall, the project is on course to create 25,000 jobs.
It is even more extraordinary to hear Scottish nationalist party Members when it is not just Conservatives, not just the nuclear industry and not just Her Majesty’s Opposition who favour it. Sir David Attenborough himself said:
“I do not question the use of nuclear energy as a way of solving our energy problems in the short term”
until we can solve
“the problems of storage and transmission of power.”
The UN Economic Commission for Europe said:
“International climate objectives will not be met if nuclear power is excluded.”
If that is not good enough for SNP and Liberal Democrat Members, Zion Lights, former Extinction Rebellion activist and founder of Nuclear for Net Zero, said:
“renewables alone would require unfeasibly massive amounts of storage”—
which we do not have—
“to keep the lights on… we are in a climate emergency and need all the clean energy we can build right now”.
That includes nuclear.
The GMB, Unite and Prospect trade unions are all strongly in favour. I could not put it better than Charlotte Childs, the GMB national officer:
“Our environment, our economy and our communities need Ministers and MPs to back new nuclear.”
I hope all will tonight. Even a member of the Green party, Josh Stringfellow of the Kingston Green party, said:
“As Greens we trust the science on climate change. As Greens we should also trust the science on nuclear”.
Across the board, there is recognition that we will not hit net zero unless we accelerate our investment in new nuclear. This Bill provides the framework for reducing the cost of capital and increasing our options for private investment, which makes it all the more extraordinary that we have had the opposition we have. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), in a thoughtful speech, mentioned a decade of dither and delay. I assume he means from 1997 to 2007, when the then Labour Government completely turned their back on the nuclear industry.
Interestingly, the Scottish nationalists like to have their cake and eat it. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is opposed to nuclear power but, of course, Scottish consumers will benefit from being on the grid. They will benefit from the baseload, resilience and security it gives us. I hear loud and clear his call, and the call of others including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, for more investment in tidal. I reassure the House that we are looking at making sure contracts for difference provide strong support for that sector.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in a thoughtful speech, set out the importance of supporting net zero, which makes it all the more strange that the Liberal Democrats seemingly have an almost religious objection to nuclear energy. I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Energy and  Climate Change when both the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and Chris Huhne were Secretary of State, and it was they who put in place the contracts for difference funding mechanism for nuclear, which did not work and which we are now having to sort out. It is easy to oppose with the benefit of hindsight, but the truth is that this is urgent and the Bill provides the basis for it.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park is right that household insulation is important, which is why we provided an additional £1.75 billion in the Budget to upgrade the homes of those on low incomes through the social housing decarbonisation fund and the home upgrade grant. The Government are consulting right now on raising the standards for home insulation in new houses that are built.
A number of Members mentioned wave and tidal, and I am delighted to confirm that not only is this Department funding great science and research in tidal, wave and other renewables but that at the global investment summit last week I visited wind and tidal technologies and we secured nearly £9 billion of private investment in the international renewables sector. We are actively considering whether we should ringfence tidal technologies in the next round of CfD, and it will be eligible under pot 2.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun challenged the £30 billion cost saving. The full analysis and methodology is set out in the impact assessment accompanying this Bill, and I confirm the current contract ensures that consumers will not pay for any overruns at Hinkley Point C.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned radioactive waste, and the truth is that we have been producing and managing radioactive waste perfectly successfully, without accident or danger to health and safety, for decades. Some 94% of the waste is very low level, and the Government, like previous Governments, have a strong plan for a geological disposal facility.
A number of colleagues raised the issue of national security. I want to make it clear that the Bill is not concerned with making it difficult for any particular country or company to apply. The quality of the bids will be considered in due course by the Secretary of State, with full accountability to Parliament. The Bill does not determine any future nuclear project’s ownership structure; it simply creates a new financing model that broadens our options for new nuclear.
As a package, the legislation before Members will help to end our reliance on overseas developers for finance, which has led to the cancellation of nuclear projects in the UK. Instead, the Bill ensures that our new nuclear power plants can be financed by British pension funds and institutional investors. However, this is not about shutting out individual companies or countries, and the Government have already taken significant powers through the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
A number of colleagues have raised the issue of the scrutiny of risk assessment, and I want to reassure Members that the Secretary of State will be required to act transparently and with full disclosure to the House.  I close by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions, highlighting that I hope very much that the Scottish nationalists will not divide the House tonight on something that Scottish voters will benefit from. I strongly believe that this new funding model acts in the interests of the whole of this country, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 44.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Nuclear energy (financing) Bill (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 30 November 2021.
The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— (Mrs Wheeler.)

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 80.
Question accordingly agreed to.

nuclear energy (financing) bill: MONEY

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act,
(2) any expenditure incurred by the Competition and Markets Authority by virtue of the Act,
(3) any expenditure incurred by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority by virtue of the Act, and
(4) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

nuclear energy (financing) bill: ways and means

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) provisions by virtue of which persons may be required to make payments, or provide financial collateral, for the purposes of, or in connection with, enabling a revenue collection counterparty to discharge obligations in relation to revenue collection contracts;
(2) the imposition, by virtue of the Act, of charges or payments under licences issued under the Electricity Act 1989;
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
In this Resolution, “revenue collection counterparty” and “revenue collection contract” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Bill.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Resolved,
That Jackie Doyle-Price be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance for Children and Young People) (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

business of the house (4 November)

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 4 November, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order No, 14 (Arrangement of public business) in respect of precedence, the motion in the name of Wendy Morton relating to the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1146) shall have precedence over the business determined for that day by the Backbench Business Committee; that business may then be proceeded with until 5.00 pm or for five hours, whichever is the later, and then shall lapse if not previously  disposed of; those proceedings may be entered upon and continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)

business of the house (8 November)

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 8 November, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Kennels and Catteries: Economic and Social Contribution

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Sara Britcliffe: The covid-19 pandemic has been unlike anything that we have experienced since the second world war. The mandatory closure of businesses and the restrictions on where we could go and who we could meet were unprecedented in our recent history, as were the restrictions on travelling abroad for holidays or business. Most of us are used to simply booking a flight, arranging for our pets to be looked after and heading off to the sun. I will talk about those restrictions and their specific impact on catteries and kennels.
The Government’s response to the pandemic made available unprecedented levels of support to businesses and to the economy as a whole. Without that urgent action, many businesses would have failed and our economy would have suffered untold damage. History will judge our actions and the support that we provided as necessary, proportionate and crucial; Ministers should be commended for putting it together so quickly.
As with any system, however, issues on the periphery inevitably meant that a limited number of specific cases fell through the cracks. After all, not everything fits neatly into a defined box or is easily categorised. I will highlight the example of kennels and catteries, which offer accommodation to pets 365 days a year and provide a vital service to travellers and businesspeople who need to go abroad.
Like other industries, kennels and catteries were affected by the lockdowns and their trade was restricted. Unlike a shop or restaurant, however, they did not simply spring back into shape after the lockdowns ended. International travel was still hugely restricted and the demand for travel was hit by a lack of confidence even when people could travel abroad. Indeed, much of the demand did not come back even after the rules surrounding opening businesses had lifted.
The difficulty is that restrictions remained in the tourism supply chain—industries directly affected by tourism—but, unlike other industries, kennels and catteries are not considered part of the tourism sector. This is where my constituents Claire and Craig Dodding, who run a cattery in my constituency, come in. In response to those difficulties, they set up the UK Alliance of Catteries and Kennels, which advocates on behalf of the industry and supports catteries and kennels across the country. They set out the problem in a recent email to me, which, if the House will bear with me, I will read in full:
“Our industry is regulated by DEFRA yet is not part of DEFRA. It is licensed by councils yet has no awarding body. Our industry is business rated yet has no guidelines regarding premises. Our industry is not recognised under any main SIC yet has Government-regulated bodies making decisions that impact it with no means of challenge. The industry falls into sub-representation with charities yet is a business, not a charity.”
In short, the industry is not easily categorised and so falls through the cracks.

Antony Higginbotham: My hon. Friend is making some interesting and important points. Businesses that have benefited from her constituents’ advocacy   include Clearview Cattery in Burnley, which is run by Ryan, and the Pet Hotel. I thank her constituents for everything they do to advocate not just for themselves but for the whole sector.

Sara Britcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Craig and Claire have done astounding work with councils across the country, lobbying on behalf of all their members.
We see a discrepancy in how councils have awarded discretionary funding. Grants in Hyndburn, for example, have been different from others across the country, which can range from thousands of pounds to hundreds of pounds.
The industry has a huge number of regulations on everything from licensing and welfare to safety and staffing, yet there is no accurate number of businesses in the industry as they pay their licensing fees to local councils, and the bulk of councils do not collate that information correctly or at all. All councils are meant to have an accurate, up-to-date list of licensed animal boarding establishments available to the general public. However, the UK Alliance’s research suggests that 75% of councils either do not have that or they have information that is incorrect or out of date. I spoke to constituents today who explained that, when they were given a grant by a local council, it called a cattery in someone else’s patch and a lady who had not had her cattery for 49 years was still on the council’s list. That goes to show the issue that we have.
We need to focus on the industry’s place within the wider economy—it clearly needs to be part of travel and tourism. It is also important to consider how it is regulated and where it sits in relation to oversight and regulation. We must ensure that councils are giving it the support that it needs and that support is consistent across councils.
My constituents have specific issues and asks of the Government that they have asked me to set out. First, there is no standard industrial classification code for animal boarding establishments. I am told that, at present, the nearest code is 01.62/1, which is farm animal boarding and care—except pets. The UK Alliance proposes that we follow the USA’s SIC and create a new subcategory under section A called “animal services, except veterinary” and include the following: animal shelters; boarding horses; boarding catteries; boarding kennels; boarding of other animals; home boarding dogs; home boarding cats; home boarding of other animals; breeding of animals—

Caroline Nokes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sara Britcliffe: I give way.

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend is clearly setting out the complexities of the industry—I will refer to it as an industry. Does she agree that businesses such as the Longcroft Luxury Cat Hotel in my constituency want certainty and that, whether they are dealing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the local council or their tax affairs, everything should be codified in one place so that they can understand what they are entitled to and what is available to them?

Sara Britcliffe: I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. She is correct. I have been getting that message loud and clear from the UK Alliance. Many Members of Parliament have been lobbied to put that message to the Government by their local kennels and catteries, who have really struggled throughout the pandemic. We must consider that going forward.
I will carry on with the list; there are only a few left. The new sub-category should also include dog grooming, pedigree record services for pets and other animal specialties, and the showing of pets and other animal specialties. That would bring all other animal services under one sub-category of section A. It would also bring all businesses that follow DEFRA’s 2018 boarding of cats and dogs regulations under the same sub-category.
The UK Alliance has also suggested that the Government should establish a centralised professional body, which would be responsible for issuing licences to these businesses. The system is currently fragmented and operated by individual local authorities. That professional body would ensure that a current list of inspected and regulated businesses was available to the general public, deal with requests from business owners and the general public, and maintain a database of inspected businesses to be available at all times.

Aaron Bell: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of the kennels and catteries industry. May I cheekily take the opportunity to raise the case of Eardley Hall kennels in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme? It suffered not only from the impact of covid, which she has already spoken about, but from flooding caused by a broken culvert on an illegal waste dump. I am trying to adjudicate between the Environment Agency and Staffordshire County Council as to why that has happened. The Minister is in her place; perhaps she will hear what I am saying too. Eardley Hall kennels, and all the other kennels and catteries in Newcastle-under-Lyme, contribute a huge amount to our local economy and I am very glad that my hon. Friend has secured this Adjournment debate.

Sara Britcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case and I completely agree with him. I can imagine that Claire and Craig will have been lobbying on behalf of his constituents too, because they have done a fantastic job of that.
Finally, the industry suggests that catteries and kennels should have specific guidelines for business rating purposes. At present, there is no agreed standard, and all areas of cattery and kennel businesses, including communal corridors and fire escapes, are included in calculations. Other commercial properties are exempt from paying rates on those areas.
Obviously, a lot of this is very technical and would require changes at least to regulations and possibly to legislation. It seems to me that a sensible first step would be for representatives of the sector to meet DEFRA and discuss these issues. I therefore ask the Minister whether it would be possible to broker an initial meeting between her and her officials, the UK Alliance and me. That would go a long way to opening lines of communication and starting the discussion about how we can better ensure that the needs of this sector are met and that catteries and kennels across the country are treated fairly and consistently.

Jo Churchill: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) for securing this debate. I could not agree with her more that kennels and catteries contribute an awful lot to our economy and society, but also to our lives. We were in this place only last Friday discussing some of the benefits. I apologise, because she spoke in that debate and I think she has rescue cats herself—does she not?

Sara Britcliffe: indicated assent.

Jo Churchill: Yes. Some incredible names were mentioned that day, and I cannot bring to mind whether she had a Noodle, a Doodle, a Frazzle or whoever. The one that sticks in my mind is Andrew the pig—but I digress.
As I say, kennels and catteries contribute in many ways, on both national and local scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned the importance of looking to treat them as a group. Some 26% of UK adults own a dog and some 24% a cat. Their companion dogs or cats will be among the 9.6 million dogs and 10.7 million cats that reside in this country and, hopefully, are lavished with an enormous amount of love. Indeed, I will declare that I am a dog owner, and I probably over-indulge him.
Kennels and catteries provide important services to our cat and dog populations and their owners, and I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency is the base for several such establishments. That situation is replicated in just about every constituency across the House.
I turn to the benefits of kennels and catteries. Locally, kennels and catteries have a positive economic benefit, stimulating the local economy through the purchase of pet food and equipment and the employing of local vets for the health of their residents, as well as tradesmen to maintain their establishments. The ripples of that economic benefit will be felt discretely regionally and nationally through medium and large-scale suppliers and manufacturers. In that way, kennels and catteries contribute to continued economic success and increasing consumer spending across the sector.
There is, of course, a further significant economic benefit to kennels and catteries, one which my right hon. Friend has taken great care to raise with us this evening: the indirect economic benefit felt by others, such as the travel and tourism sector. In this case, the services provided by kennels and catteries allow us to travel or visit locations which would not otherwise be possible. I heard her comments about re-categorisation and so on. The challenge is that several Departments are involved in what she is asking me to consider.

Simon Baynes: The security of pets is a major concern these days. I strongly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) for raising the issue. It is an issue that worries people and I have had meetings on it in my constituency. A strong and vibrant cattery and kennel sector is a very important part of keeping our pets secure.

Jo Churchill: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Department is looking to do something about pet theft in future legislation.
The Government are aware of the sector’s concerns relating to the covid-19 restrictions that were in place and understand the considerable difficulties faced not only by kennels and catteries, but by many businesses adversely affected by the fall in travel and tourism due to the pandemic. I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn for her acknowledgement that the Government acted swiftly and put a great deal of effort into ensuring that businesses were supported.
The Government’s swift action to provide a range of covid-19 support measures to both businesses and charities was done at pace. We published information on how to access that support and worked with sector bodies at the time—that is the important thing I would like to stress—such as the Canine and Feline Sector Group. We worked with the group to enable grooming to start up. In the difficult days of the pandemic, it worked on regulations around safety handovers and so on, so that the industry could get up and running. That work led to the publication of advice to owners and pet businesses throughout the period that restrictions were in place.
We continue to engage with the sector to try to understand and address any residual issues. Government support included, but was not limited to, loans, small business grants available through local authorities, mortgage holidays and VAT deferral. Those, and other provisions, were maintained and extended as the situation developed. The Government also acted to protect the income of the self-employed through the self-employed income support scheme grant, and supported employees through the furlough scheme. Businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, including catteries, will have felt the benefit of that support.
I understand that the owner of Rhoden Manor has gone on to establish the UK Alliance of Catteries and Kennels with the aim of strengthening their collective voice. I recognise that there has been a great deal of concern in the sector and we take that very seriously. We will keep a close watch on intake levels and trends. DEFRA remains committed to continued engagement with the sector and to understanding the long-term impacts of the pandemic, monitoring the animal welfare implications and offering subsequent and appropriate advice.
Local authorities were allocated £500 million in discretionary funding through the additional restrictions grant to support businesses that were significantly impacted, even though they were not required to close. That was in addition to the £1.1 billion allocated in November 2020. Local authorities had the discretion to support businesses in the way that they saw fit.
I recognise the importance of kennels and catteries and the varied roles that they play in our lives, from enabling our ability to travel to supporting key workers, allowing them to undertake their roles. The Government are also convinced that the kennels and catteries of this country provide many economic benefits. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn can be reassured by the fact that we are working with the Local Government Animal Welfare Group to improve the data that several hon. Members said was perhaps not as seamless as they would like it to be.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that the Government have taken the appropriate steps throughout the covid restrictions to ensure that we supported kennels  and catteries, so that they could, and can, continue to operate. I thank her for securing tonight’s debate. She spoke recently about the support that the Government have given to high streets, recognising the effort and investment that we have made.
To conclude, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to tease out, as she said, the quite complex set of asks that she laid out this evening and to see exactly where the challenges are, because I would like my officials to check some of the details about the database, and so on. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, making it a simpler system to navigate is probably one of the key  asks. On that note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn again for securing the debate and thank our cattery and kennel owners for not only all they did in the pandemic, but all they do all the time.

Nigel Evans: I was honoured to chair both Friday’s debate on animals and tonight’s as well. If it proves anything, we are a Parliament of animal lovers, that is for certain.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.